Epstein Secrets

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

ttorney 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" was her live-in boyfriend, and that Mr. Ocariz was his former law-school roommate.

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

torney 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 friend" was her live-in boyfriend, and that Mr. Ocariz was his former law-school room

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

torney 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 friend" was her live-in boyfriend, and that Mr. Ocariz was his former law-school roomm

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

ttorney 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" was ha live-in boyfriend, and that Mr. Ocariz was his former law-school roommate.

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

torney 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 "good friend" was her live-in boyfriend, and that Mr. Ocariz was his former law-s

sis in original). A true and correct copy of that email correspondence is annexed hereto as Exhibit D. 9. On or about December 18, 2018, I contacted Jay Lefkowitz, who represented appellant Jeffrey Epstein in the above-captioned appeal. Mr. Lefkowitz told me that he no longer represents Mr. Epstein and referred

Exhibit D. 9. On or about December 18, 2018, I contacted Jay Lefkowitz, who represented appellant Jeffrey Epstein in the above-captioned appeal. Mr. Lefkowitz told me that he no longer represents Mr. Epstein and referred me to Martin Weinberg, who currently acts as counsel for Mr. Epstein. 10... On or abou

le documents under seal. This is not particular to People v. Epstein; it is routine across our appellate filings. My understanding is that it is also the Appellate Division’s (the court's) practice to maintain such seal. That being said, | have discussed your second question with our attorneys. If the Post petitions the c

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

torney 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 friend" was her live-in boyfriend, and that Mr. Ocariz was his former law-school roomm

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

rney 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 “good friend” was her live-in boyfriend, and that Mr. Ocariz was his former law-s