Epstein Secrets

ton. The need for review is now all the more exigent. On Monday, May 19, 2008, First Assistant Jeffrey Sloman of the USAO responded to an email from Jay Lefkowitz informing U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta that we would be seeking your Office’s review. Mr. Sloman’s letter, which imposed a deadline of June 2, 2008 to c

Sloman of the USAO responded to an email from Jay Lefkowitz informing U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta that we would

ed for integrity in the enforcement of federal criminal laws, and (ii) the profound questions raised by the unprecedented extension of federal law by the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (the “USAO”) to a prominent public figure who has close ties to former President Clinton. The need for review is now all the more exigent.

pstein's civil exposure. For example, on October 3, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafafia sent an email (attached hereto as Exhibit “D’’) to Jay Lefkowitz, counsel for Epstein, with attached proposed letter to special master regarding handling numerous expected civil claims against Epstein. The letter r

e and did in fact believe that Epstein and his attorneys knew of the seriousness of the criminal investigation — him and corresponded constantly with the United States Attorney’s Office in an attempt to avoid the filing of numerous federal felony offenses, which effort was successful. See Correspondence from U.S. Attorney’s Office to

es Attorney's Office prepared negotiated lea agreements containing these charges. For example, in a September 18, 2007, email from AUSA Villafafia to Lefkowitz (attached hereto as Exhibit “H’), she attached the proposed plea agreement describing Epstein’s witness tampering as follows: "UNITED STATES vs. JE

ton. The need for review is now all the more exigent. On Monday, May 19, 2008, First Assistant Jeffrey Sloman of the USAO responded to an email from Jay Lefkowitz informing U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta that we would be seeking your Office’s review. Mr. Sloman’s letter, which imposed a deadline of June 2, 2008 to c

Sloman of the USAO responded to an email from Jay Lefkowitz informing U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta that we would

ed for integrity in the enforcement of federal criminal laws, and (ii) the profound questions raised by the unprecedented extension of federal law by the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (the “USAO”) to a prominent public figure who has close ties to former President Clinton. The need for review is now all the more exigent.

ton. The need for review is now all the more exigent. On Monday, May 19, 2008, First Assistant Jeffrey Sloman of the USAO responded to an email from Jay Lefkowitz informing U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta that we would be seeking your Office’s review. Mr. Sloman’s letter, which imposed a deadline of June 2, 2008 to c

Sloman of the USAO responded to an email from Jay Lefkowitz informing U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta that we would

ed for integrity in the enforcement of federal criminal laws, and (ii) the profound questions raised by the unprecedented extension of federal law by the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (the “USAO”) to a prominent public figure who has close ties to former President Clinton. The need for review is now all the more exigent.

did in fact believe that Epstein and his attorneys knew of the seriousness of the criminal investigation against him and corresponded constantly with the United States Attorney’s Office in an attempt to avoid the filing of numerous federal felony offenses, which effort was successful. See Correspondence from U.S. Attorney’s Office to

Epstein's civil exposure. For example, on October 3, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafafia sent an email (attached hereto as Exhibit “D”) to Jay Lefkowitz, counsel for Epstein, with attached proposed letter to special master regarding handling numerous expected civil claims against Epstein. The letter r

s Attorney's Office prepared negotiated plea agreements containing these charges. For example, in a September 18, 2007, email from AUSA Villafafia to Lefkowitz (attached hereto as Exhibit “H”), she attached the proposed plea agreement describing Epstein’s witness tampering as follows: "UNITED STATES vs. JE

the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (“USAO”). Moreover, CEOS did not assess

statutes that have been identified by prosecutors—18 USS.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b), and 2423(b). 1 One of the other members of Mr. Epstein’s defense team, Jay Lefkowitz, has personally reviewed the reporter’s contemporaneous notes. 2 Although some of the women alleged to be involved were 16 and 17 years of age, seve

other members of Mr. Epstein’s defense team, Jay Lefkowitz, has personally reviewed the reporter’s contempor

ged by Epstein’s lawyers to victim notifications, the [United States Attorney’s Office] reevaluated its obligations to provide notificat

sis in original). A true and correct copy of that email correspondence is annexed hereto as Exhibit D. 9. On or about December 18, 2018, I contacted Jay Lefkowitz, who represented appellant Jeffrey Epstein in the above-captioned appeal. Mr. Lefkowitz told me that he no longer represents Mr. Epstein and referred

Exhibit D. 9. On or about December 18, 2018, I contacted Jay Lefkowitz, who represented appellant Jeffrey Epstein in the above-captioned appeal. Mr. Lefkowitz told me that he no longer represents Mr. Epstein and referred me to Martin Weinberg, who currently acts as counsel for Mr. Epstein. 10... On or abou

the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (““USAO”). Moreover, CEOS did not assess

tatutes that have been identified by prosecutors-~18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b), and 2423(b). 1 One of the other members of Mr. Epstein's defense team, Jay Lefkowitz, has personally reviewed the reporter’s contemporaneous notes. 2 Although some of the women alleged to be involved were 16 and 17 years of age, seve

other members of Mr. Epstein's defense team, Jay Lefkowitz, has personally reviewed the reporter’s contempor