Epstein Secrets

. Sorry Ori inal Message From: (USAFLS) To: Sent: Mon May 19 12:40:32 2008 Subject: FW: confidential communication For your records. From: Jay Lefkowitz (maitto Sent: Monda , May 19, 2008 10:54 AM To: (USAFLS) Subject: confidential communication Dear Alex: I am writing to you because I have just

ntial communication For your records. From: Jay Lefkowitz (maitto Sent: Monda , May 19, 2008 10:54 AM To:

scussions, you expressed that you were "not unsympathetic" to our various federalism concerns, but stated that because you serve within the "unitary Executive,' you believed your hands were tied by Main Justice. You were also extremely gracious in stating that you did not want the United States to be "unfa

ice" in § 3771(a)(5) is 3 Jane Doe No. 2's exculpatory statements regarding Epstein were not lost on his attorneys. A December 21, 2007 letter from Jay Lefkowitz, one of Epstein's attorneys, to U.S. Attorney Acosta, devoted two pages examining Jane Doe No. 2's interview testimony on April 24, 2007. Ex. D at

by Epstein's attorneys to the Deputy Attorney General. Ex... On June 23, 2008, John Roth, Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General wrote to Messrs. Lefkowitz and Stair, advising them that "federal prosecution of this case is appropriate." Ex. I. Mr. Roth also told Epstein's attorneys that their allegation

ited States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08 (1985); see also Fokker, 818 F.3d at 737-738 (noting the long-settled understandings about the independence of the Executive with regard to charging decisions and concluding that "[n]othing in the [Speedy Trial Act's] terms or structure suggests any intention to subvert t

I (a)(5) is significant 3 Jane Doe No. 2's exculpatory statements regarding Epstein were not lost on his attorneys. A December 21, 2007 letter from Jay Leflcowitz, one of Epstein's attorneys, to U.S. Attorney Acosta, devoted two pages examining Jane Doe No. 2's interview testimony on April 24, 2007. Ex. D at

hts associated with the agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion." Ex. N, Nov. 27, 2007 email from Sloman to Lefkowitz. Epstein's attorneys responded by citing to the Attorney General's Guidelines provision stating that there must be a charge filed in a Federal distr

ited States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08 (1985); see also Fokker, 818 F.3d at 737-738 (noting the long-settled understandings about the independence of the Executive with regard to charging decisions and concluding that "[n]othing in the [Speedy Trial Act's] terms or structure suggests any intention to subvert t

71(a)(5) is significant 3 Jane Doe No. 2's exculpatory statements regarding Epstein were not lost on his attorneys. A December 21, 2007 letter from Jay Lefkowitz, one of Epstein's attorneys, to U.S. Attorney Acosta, devoted two pages examining Jane Doe No. 2's interview testimony on April 24, 2007. Ex. D at

hts associated with the agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion." Ex. N, Nov. 27, 2007 email from Sloman to Lefkowitz. Epstein's attorneys responded by citing to the Attorney General's Guidelines provision stating that there must be a charge filed in a Federal distr

ited States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08 (1985); see also Fokker, 818 F.3d at 737-738 (noting the long-settled understandings about the independence of the Executive with regard to charging decisions and concluding that "[n]othing in the [Speedy Trial Act's] terms or structure suggests any intention to subvert t

o a mere two state prostitution-solicitation charges and agree to an 18-month sentence in the county jail. On September 16, 2007, Epstein's counsel Jay Lefkowitz sent the U.S. Attorney's Office a proposed written agreement, wherein the Office would extend immunity from federal prosecution to Epstein and cer

federal immunity. The co-conspirators did not sign the NPA and were not listed as parties to it. 7 As the NPA was being signed. Epstein's attorney Lefkowitz e-mailed AUSA Villafana, requesting: "Marie— Please do whatever you can to keep this (NPA) from becoming public." AUSA Villafana assured Lefkowitz that

r in the Executive Branch not to indict ... has long been regarded as [within] the special province of the Executive Branch, inasmuch as it is the Executive who is charged by the Constitution to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' " (quoting U.S. Const., Art. II, § 3)). This Executive Bra

victim elected to proceed exclusively under § 2255, as opposed to a civil damages action). 6 As the Agreement was being signed, Epstein's attorney Jay Lefkowitz e-mailed AUSA Villafana, requesting: "Marie - Please do whatever you can to keep this [Agreement] from becoming public." (emphasis added). AUSA Vil

illafana, requesting: "Marie - Please do whatever you can to keep this [Agreement] from becoming public." (emphasis added). AUSA Villafafia assured Lefkowitz that the Agreement would be kept confidential. 7 For example, in a December 6, 2007 letter, AUSA Villafana informed Lefkowitz that "fsjection 3771

resolution of this petition for a writ of mandamus would not change. Moreover, ow opinion about pre-charge *1272 rights would not be binding on the Executive in the same way that the opinions about pension requests were not binding in? I He/Aunts Case. B. We Construe Statutes by Reading the Whole Text,

ng down, we just want to get a final blessing.” Negotiations continued throughout the day on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, with Villafaña and Lefkowitz exchanging emails regarding the factual proffer for a plea and the scheduling of a meeting to finalize the plea agreement’s terms. During that exc

deputy and with whom he had socialized. Later, when Epstein was seeking Acosta’s personal involvement in the case, Epstein hired Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz, prominent attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis with whom Acosta was acquainted from his previous employment with that firm. Villafaña told OPR that s

ing decisions, the choice to resolve a case through a non-prosecution agreement or a deferred prosecution agreement “resides fundamentally with the Executive” branch. Id. at 741. OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard in the USAM prohibiting the use of a non- prosecution agreement in the circumsta