Epstein Secrets

, Esq. Company; Pax #: Direct #: United States Attorney, Southern District of Florida Company: Fax #: Direct it From: Sandra Musumeci for Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. Message: Date: July 29, 2011 Pages w/cover: 4 Fax #: Direct #: Please see the attached letter, in response to your letter to Martin Wei

ed similar language in tying the names of the "victims" to the basis for a potential indictment, see December 6, 2007 letter from Mr. Sloman to Mr. Lefkowitz at 2, 3; see also your email to Mr. Lefkowitz and Mr. Black on August 14, 2008 at 3:27 p.m., where you state that the list contains "only those 'ind

rt, f tomm 33113 Sol 316 EFTA00180359 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[w 'hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent fro

al mseimien-ef-that-investigatienr Edwards-Deelaratien-at--11-147 33. On about February 25, 2008, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay Leflcowitz„ a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit _.Bpsteinls—eriminal—defense eeunselr explaining that the Justice Department's Child Exploitation Obsc

ter Relantionulso-is-felling-Chief Reiier-not4O-diselose the-eufeente-fe-anyene 4-2, On about September 25, 2007, AUSA Villafafia sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit stating.-11And-ean-we-itaye-a-eenferenee-edi-te-disesss what-I-may-diselese-to,the-gek-regarding-th

, that Epstein could've spent behind bars had he been prosecuted in the federal system. They're hoping that the correspondence, ordered released by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, will shed light on what they say is an unusually lenient deal. "I can say that I've been teaching criminal law for more than two decades and I hav

- year term. The subjects did not have a clear memory of why this reduction was made. Villafaña attributed it to a conversation between Acosta and Lefkowitz, but Acosta attributed it to a decision made during the negotiating process by Villafaña and Lourie, telling OPR that he understood his attorneys n

lack of clarity regarding when CVRA rights apply: the district court concluded that CVRA rights applied pre-charge, but a sharply divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals came to a contrary conclusion, a decision that has now been vacated while the entire court hears the case en banc. Because the Supreme Court had