Epstein Secrets

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

s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion with the Assistant Attorney General and with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), within the Criminal Division of the DOJ in Washington, D.C. See Exs. G, K, L. Indeed, from late 2007 to May 2008, Epstein's attorneys attempted to convince senior attorney at CEOS that Ep

icials and Epstein's attorneys, in which Epstein sought to have the NPA overturned. See Ex. H at 1. 23. On May 15, 2008, the Chief of the CEOS sent Jay Lefkowitz, Esq., a five-page letter, explaining the inquiry it conducted of the federal criminal investigation of Epstein. Ex. H. The letter concluded that "

d additional letter briefs to the Deputy Attorney General. Ex. V. 25. On June 23, 2008 Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General, wrote to Messrs. Lefkowitz and Starr, advising them that "federal prosecution of this case is appropriate." Ex. I. Mr. Roth also told Epstein's attorneys that their allegation

's exercise of his prosecutorial discretion with the Assistant Attorney General and with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), within the Criminal Division of the DOJ 6 EFTA00211712 in Washington, D.C. Exs. G, K, L. From late 2007 to May 2008, Epstein's attorneys attempted to convince senior attorney at CEOS t

some of the victims would become prosecution witnesses at trial. Ex. S, ¶¶ 35-36; see also Ex. R, ¶ 10. On May 15, 2008, the Chief of the CEOS sent Jay Lefkowitz, Esq., a five-page letter, explaining the inquiry it conducted of the federal criminal investigation of Epstein. Ex.H. The letter concluded that "f

ubmitted response letters. Ex. I DO NOT HAVE THESE LETTERS] On June 23, 2008, John Roth, Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General wrote to Messrs. Lefkowitz and Starr, advising them that "federal prosecution of this case is appropriate." Ex. I. Mr. Roth also told Epstein's attorneys that their allegation

ein challenged the United States Attorney's exercise of his prosecutorial discretion at the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), within the Criminal Division of the DOJ in Washington, D.C. Ex. G. From January to May 2008, Epstein's attorneys submitted lengthy documents to CEOS attempting to convince senior attorney

icials and Epstein's attorneys, in which Epstein sought to have the NPA overturned. aqg Ex. H at 1. 23. On May 15, 2008, the Chief of the CEOS sent Jay Lefkowitz, Esq., a five-page letter, explaining the inquiry it conducted of the federal criminal investigation of Epstein. Ex. H. The letter concluded that "

nal letter briefs to the Deputy Attorney General. Ex... 25. On June 23, 2008, John Roth, Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General wrote to Messrs. Lefkowitz and Starr, advising them that "federal prosecution of this case is appropriate." Ex. I. Mr. Roth also told Epstein's attorneys that their allegation

's exercise of his prosecutorial discretion with the Assistant Attorney General and with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), within the Criminal Division of the DOJ in Washington, D.C. Exs. G, K, L. From late 2007 to May 2008, Epstein's attorneys attempted 6 EFTA00211765 to convince senior attorney at CEOS t

icials and Epstein's attorneys, in which Epstein sought to have the NPA overturned. See Ex. H at 1. 23. On May 15, 2008, the Chief of the CEOS sent Jay Lefkowitz, Esq., a five-page letter, explaining the inquiry it conducted of the federal criminal investigation of Epstein. Ex. H. The letter concluded that "

l letter briefs to the Deputy Attorney General. Ex. V. 25. On June 23, 2008, John Roth, Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General, wrote to Messrs. Lefkowitz and Starr, advising them that "federal prosecution of this case is appropriate." Ex. I. Mr. Roth also told Epstein's attorneys that their allegation

's exercise of his prosecutorial discretion with the Assistant Attorney General and with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), within the Criminal Division of the DOJ 6 EFTA00799600 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 7 of 10 in Washington, D.C. Exs. G, K, L. From late 20

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

s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion with the Assistant Attorney General and with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), within the Criminal Division of the DOJ in Washington, D.C. See Exs. G, K, L. Indeed, from late 2007 to May 2008, Epstein's attorneys attempted to convince senior attorney at CEOS that Ep

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

s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion with the Assistant Attorney General and with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), within the Criminal Division of the DOJ in Washington, D.C. See Exs. G, K, L. Indeed, from late 2007 to May 2008, Epstein's attorneys attempted to convince senior attorney at CEOS that Ep