Epstein Secrets

ly to reach the;Palm Beach area. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 29. 13. On about September 24, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, criminal defense counsel for Epstein, regarding the agreement. The e-mail stated that the Government and Epstein's counsel U.S. Attorney's Corresp

ein's counsel U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 153 (emphases added). 14. On about September 25, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz stating: U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 156. 15. On about September 26, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz in which

LSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 7 of 42 felony offenses and would serve only county jail time. Many of the negotiations are reflected in e-mails between Lcfkowitz and the U.S. Attorney's Office. See generally Exhibit "A." 10. The evidence supporting these charges was overwhelming, including the interlocking

a non- prosecution agreement with him. Unlike a plea agreement, non-prosecution agreements are not subject to judicial pre-approval. United States' Dorsett, 2009 WL 2386070 at •4 (D.Neb. Jul. 23, 2009)("Non-prosecution agreements are similar to plea agreements, except adherence to a non-prosecution agr

y 15, 2008, Andrew G. Oosterbaan, Chief, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, sent a five-page letter 2 EFTA00211465 to Epstein's attorney, Jay Lefkowitz, Esq., in which he reviewed the factual and legal issues raised by Epstein. Mr. Oosterbaan concluded that federal prosecution of Epstein "would not

ter 2 EFTA00211465 to Epstein's attorney, Jay Lefkowitz, Esq., in which he reviewed the factual and legal

prosecution agreement is the responsibility of the prosecutor alone while a plea agreement is subject to the approval of the court; United States'. Dorsett 2009 WL 2386070 at *4 (D.Neb. Jul, 23, 2009), citin United States I. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. 551 F.2d 1106, 1112 (8th Cir. 1977). Since the nego

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

rosecution agreement is the responsibility of the prosecutor alone while a plea agreement is subject to the approval of the court." United States v. Dorsett, 2009 WL 2386070 at *4 (D. Neb. Jul. 23, 2009), citing United States v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. 551 F.2d 1106, 1112 (8th Cir. 1977). Congress's

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

rosecution agreement is the responsibility of the prosecutor alone while a plea agreement is subject to the approval of the court." United States v. Dorsett, 2009 WL 2386070 at *4 (D. Neb. Jul. 23, 2009), citing United States v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. 551 F.2d 1106, 1112 (8th Cir. 1977). Congress's