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

t 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 ignorance is appropriate only if it is shown [among other things] ... that the

the authority, and his consent, to make any determination it deems appropriate regarding this matter, including to decline federal prosecution. 2 Jay Lefkowitz has personally reviewed the reporter's contemporaneous notes. EFTA00310840 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Honorable ■ May 14, 2008 Page 4 As you know, I

ncluding to decline federal prosecution. 2 Jay Lefkowitz has personally reviewed the reporter's contempora

age 4 proceeds of specified unlawful activity,' or (c) 'to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law"'. United States v. Puche, 350 F.3d 1137 (11 Cir. 2003);5 see also United States v. Arditti, 955 F.2d 331 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied, cert. denied 506 U.S. 998 (1992), cert. d

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

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 ignorance is appropriate only if it is shown [among other things] ... that the de

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

et 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 is appropriate only if it is shown [among other things] . . . that the d

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

hem 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 ignorance is appropriate only if it is shown [among other things] ... that the de