Epstein Secrets

U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 2053U June 23, 2008 Jay Lefkowitz, Esq. Kenneth Starr, Esq. Kirkland and Ellis LLP Gentlemen: This Office has completed a thorough review of the U.S. Attorney's handling of the ma

stice Washington, D.C. 2053U June 23, 2008 Jay Lefkowitz, Esq. Kenneth Starr, Esq. Kirkland and Ellis LL

olations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b) and 2423(b). Since the limited review conducted by CEOS, two Supreme Court decisions—one authored by Justice Scalia and the other by Justice Thomas—have revitalized the bedrock principles that federal criminal statutes must be narrowly construed, that they may not

d by the FBI to confirm whether they were 17 or 18 at the time of their activity with Mr. Epstein." See Tab 26, September 24, 2007 Email from M. to J. Lefkowitz (emphasis added). This statement indicated that, at least the "six others" (and, as it turns out, all those identified except two) had reached the a

05 Wd z[:60 nu L00E-T I -Ain EFTA00209884 Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: , Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: ues ay, September 18, 2007 9:13 AM To: 'Jay Lefkowitz' Subject: RE: Draft Agreements? Ili Jay - I know that the U.S. Attorney will not go below 18 months of prison/jail time (and I would strongly oppo

olations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b) and 2423(b). Since the limited review conducted by CEOS, two Supreme Court decisions—one authored by Justice Scalia and the other by Justice Thomas—have revitalized the bedrock principles that federal criminal statutes must be narrowly construed, that they may not

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

olations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b) and 2423(b). Since the limited review conducted by CEOS, two Supreme Court decisions—one authored by Justice Scalia and the other by Justice Thomas--have revitalized the bedrock principles that federal criminal statutes must be narrowly construed, that they may no

f Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 June 23, 2008 Jay Lefkowitz„ Esq. Kenneth Starr, Esq. Kirkland and Ellis LL

stice Washington, D.C. 20530 June 23, 2008 Jay Lefkowitz„ Esq. Kenneth Starr, Esq. Kirkland and Ellis LL

der the law that existed when the con uct took place has timeless and universal appeal." Kaiser Alum. & trt Corp . B mo 494 U.S. 827, 855 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring). Id. at 265 (footnote omitted). Courts therefore apply the statute in effect at the time of the underlying conduct unless there is

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

nion is like a pirate ship. It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated ...."). The dissents commit a basic error of statutory interpretation by reading subsections (a)(5), (aX8), and (dX3) in isolation with

Granting Motion for Limited Appearance of Jay P. Lefkowitz) (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 05/21/2009) 05/21/

were possessed; the Court held the legislative amendment was a mere clarification of the prior legislation and not an ex post facto law. 9 Justice Scalia cited the statement of purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to hold that, for example, the amendments specifically designed to overrule Patterso