Epstein Secrets

itz that we would not agree to a misdemeanor charge unrelated to the crimes that we had investigated. Throughout the drafting of the NPA, eve time Ja Lefkowitz and I reached an impasse, he and/or Ken Starr would appeal to or MIM, making it impossible to hold a firm line or keep a singular negotiating str

s excuse that he received "bad advice" from his attorneys and then he would "cure" the breach. With regard to the work release, either Roy Black or Jay Lefkowitz informed me that USA had agreed, after the NPA was signed, that Epstein would be allowed to participate in work release like an other state prison

application of the law to different defendants and defense attorneys has resulted in a call for the resignation of the AUSA who dared to challenge the Executive Office's conclusions. I find that very disheartening. However, my first and only concern in this case (and my other child exploitation cases) is the victims

cy to commit an assault on I plane. I just want to make sure that we have something that is factually accurate. Just trying to plan ahead" (id.). At Jay Lefkowitz's request, MAUSA and I scheduled conference call with him for early on the morning of September 14, 2007 (id. at 25). Mr. did not attend the confere

After correspondence with Roy Black and I telephone conference with Mr. Black and Jay Leflcowitz, we were advised that USA Acosta had informed Mr. Lefkowitz31 that Epstein could be considered for any Erogram that was available to other prisoners. At that point, I was unable to press forward with I breach,

the a plication of the law to different defendants and defense attorneys has resulted in I call for the resignation of the who dared to challenge the Executive Office's conclusions. I find that very disheartening. However, my first and only concern in this case (and my other child exploitation cases) is the victims

ed States Attorney's Office, Miami, FL. For Roy Black, Intervenor: Jacqueline Perczek, Roy Eric Black, Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf, Miami, FL; Jay P. Lefkowitz, PRO HAC VICE, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, New York, NY; Martin G. Weinberg, PRO HAC VICE, Martin G. Weinberg, P.C., Boston, MA. For Martin G. Weinberg,

ck Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf, Miami, FL; Jay P. Lefkowitz, PRO HAC VICE, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, New York,

or the Southern District of Florida and the Executive Office of United States Attorneys. (DE 212-1 at 22-23); (see Table at P-013248-13278). One of the Executive Office's functions is to "[p]rovide general legal interpretations, opinions, and advice to United States Attorneys in areas of recusals." Offices of the Uni

led "Rsrch re Crime Victims Rights" containing attorney research, handwritten notes, draft victim notification letter, and draft correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz (Also contains a November 28 2007 letter from Kenneth Starr to , and a November 29, 2007 letter from Jay Lefkowitz to R. Alexander Acosta (P-010

Thru P-009125 12/6/2007 Letter from to Jay P. Lefkowitz re Jeffrey Epstein (victim notification) [pursua

for the Southern District of Florida and the Executive Office of United States Attorneys. (DE 212-1 at 22-23); see Table at P-013248-13278). One of the Executive Office's functions is to "[p]rovide general legal interpretations, opinions, and advice to United States Attorneys in areas of recusals." Offices of the Uni

eys Starr and Lefkowitz stating their finding that there was no abuse of discretion and no misconduct (Exhibit B-44). I immediately sent an email to Jay Lefkowitz in accordance with Mr. Senior's instructions (Ex. B-49). The following day, Roy Black and Jack Goldberger, as local counsel for Epstein, contacted m

2007, Jay Lefkowitz, counsel for Epstein, objected to the victim notification letter in a letter to USA Acosta. (Exhibit B-9). USA Acosta asked Mr. Lefkowitz to discuss the matter with Jeff Sloman and me. (Exhibit B-10). On December 5, 2007, Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz wrote a letter to USA Acosta re

application of the law to different defendants and defense attorneys has resulted in a call for the resignation of the AUSA who dared to challenge the Executive Office's conclusions. I find that very disheartening. However, my first and only concern in this case (and my other child exploitation cases) is the victims