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

t prosecutorial discretion and the grand jury to judicial scrutiny — exactly the outcome that the CVRA states is disallowed. For example, in In re Petersen, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), an individual and a corporation filed an emergency petition for enforcement of the CVRA, "seeking an orde

otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court is awaiting supplemental briefing on the Motion to Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE 56) and will rule on that motion after it is fully briefed. Also, because the proposed interveners seek intervention to request a protective ord

Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE 56) and will rule on that motion after it is

(d)(3)'s provision that victims may vindicate their CVRA For this reason, the Court respectfully disagrees with the interpretation adopted in In re Petersen, No. 10-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), upon which the United States relies. See id. at *2 (holding that a "victim's 'right to be tre

otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court is awaiting supplemental briefing on the Motion to Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE 56) and will rule on that motion after it is fully briefed. Also, because the proposed interveners seek intervention to request a protective ord

Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE 56) and will rule on that motion after it is

(d)(3)'s provision that victims may vindicate their CVRA For this reason, the Court respectfully disagrees with the interpretation adopted in In re Petersen, No. 10-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), upon which the United States relies. See id. at *2 (holding that a "victim's `right to be tre

otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court is awaiting supplemental briefing on the Motion to Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE 56) and will rule on that motion after it is fully briefed. Also, because the proposed interveners seek intervention to request a protective ord

Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE 56) and will rule on that motion after it is

(d)(3)'s provision that victims may vindicate their CVRA For this reason, the Court respectfully disagrees with the interpretation adopted in In re Petersen, No. 10-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), upon which the United States relies. See id. at *2 (holding that a "victim's 'right to be tre

otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court is awaiting supplemental briefing on the Motion to Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE 56) and will rule on that motion after it is fully briefed. Also, because the proposed interveners seek intervention to request a protective ord

Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE 56) and will rule on that motion after it is

(d)(3)'s provision that victims may vindicate their CVRA For this reason, the Court respectfully disagrees with the interpretation adopted in In re Petersen, No. 10-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), upon which the United States relies. See id. at *2 (holding that a "victim's `right to be tre

therwise fully advised in the premises. ' The Court is awaiting supplemental briefing on the Motion to Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE 56) and will rule on that motion after it is fully briefed. Also, because the proposed interveners seek intervention to request a protective ord

Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE 56) and will rule on that motion after it is

(d)(3)'s provision that victims may vindicate their CVRA For this reason, the Court respectfully disagrees with the interpretation adopted in In re Petersen, No. 10-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), upon which the United States relies. See id. at *2 (holding that a "victim's 'right to be tre

otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court is awaiting supplemental briefing on the Motion to Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE 56) and will rule on that motion after it is fully briefed. Also, because the proposed interveners seek intervention to request a protective ord

Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE 56) and will rule on that motion after it is

)(3)'s provision that victims may vindicate their CVRA 5 For this reason, the Court respectfully disagrees with the interpretation adopted in In re Petersen, No. 10-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (M. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), upon which the United States relies. See id. at *2 (holding that a "victim's `right to be treat