Epstein Secrets

US DeP•Mlilla I tr4 tram Race.” Fodor& AulaSciti Attailnistratien 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001697 EFTA00209876 U.S. Department of Justice United Slates Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 3340! (361)820-8711 Facsimile: (561)820-8777 May

ta United States Att A. Marie Assistant United States Attorney 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001698 EFTA00209877 05/15/2007 16:57 FAX 5618021787 USA0 WPB FL gaol TX REPORT IX#i TRANSMISSION OK Sals *****Atii************* TX/RX NO 4676 CONNECTION TEL 8358691 SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID ST.

a result of the federal investigation], or acquittal on the merits shall be a bar to any subsequent federal prosecution for the same act or acts." U.S.A.M. § 9-2.031A (emphasis added). Consistent with that principle, and of particular relevance to this case, the Department itself just recently observed

inding that the defendant had an intent to persuade or to attempt to persuade.' United States I Murrell 368 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing United States'. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 638-39 (6th Cir.2000)). Thus, the targeted criminal conduct must occur through the interstate facility, not thereafter, and

enchel advised the defense that the federal government required a minimum term of two years of incarceration. See Tab 40, August 3, 2007 Email from M. Menchel. Subsequently, Ms. 4 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001657 EFTA00209836 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP emailed the defense stating that United States Attorne

tivity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, that is a violation of Florida Statutes Section 794.05; in violation of Title 18, United StateW bode, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 22 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 55. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged

rtment could bring charges, it should decline as a matter of prosecutorial discretion. The relevant factors are set forth in Section 9-27.230 of the United States Attorney's Manual, and those factors counsel against prosecution. Mr. Epstein has no criminal history of any kind. Given the unique nature of any pr

il litigation against him. They further demanded that Mr. Epstein waive EFTA00225865 • Page 44 case involving the murder of a federal official." U.S.A.M. § 9-2.031D. To put it mildly, that egregious example is a far cry from the situation at hand. Instead, the federal prosecutors' disagreement with t

to undertake discussion with the State Attorney's Office to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' interest pursuant to the Petite Policy." Id. However, after Mr. Epstein's counsel conveyed to the prosecutors the fact that they had appeared to ig

y stated that "the federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two year term of state imprisonment." See August 3, 2007 letter from M. Menchel, Exhibit 35.16 This letter openly acknowledged that the Petite Policy applied to this matter, and also highlighted the steps federal prosecutors we

e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Box #3 P-012089 Thru P-012129 United States' Response to Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas and Cross-Motion to Compel 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual

Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections P-0133303 proposed letter to J. Lefkowitz; 5/22/07 e- mail from A. Lourie to M. Menchel, J. Sloman, A. Marie Villafafia re meeting with G. Lefcourt with attached email from G. Lefcourt re solicitation for meetings Work Product Gover

andatory for wire fraud only if the government exercises its discretion to seek such forfeiture. See 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a); United States v. Liquidators of European Fed. Credit Bank, 630 F.3d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing procedure for forfeiture). "[T]he Government retains b

Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections P-0133303 proposed letter to J. Lefkowitz; 5/22/07 e- mail from A. Lourie to M. Menchel, J. Sloman, A. Marie Villafafta re meeting with G. Lefcourt with attached email from G. Lefcourt re solicitation for meetings Work Product Gover

iminal statutes, including those enacted to protect important federal interests. In cases involving the federalization of activity that is within the States’ historic police power, Congress must speak with particular clarity. See, e.g., Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989). 12

Menchel advised the defense that the federal government required a minimum term of two years of incarceration. See Tab 40, August 3, 2007 Email from M. Menchel. Subsequently, Ms. 4 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012163 --- PAGE BREAK --- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Villafana emailed the defense stating that United States Atto

tter points out (CEOS letter at p. 3), I was a member of CEOS. In fact, I served as a federal prosecutor for twelve years; five years as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia, and seven years at CEOS. I began working as a trial attorney for CEOS in 1999, and was pr