Epstein Secrets

rk of the Court using CM/ECF. According to the Court's website, counsel for all parties are able to receive notice via the CM/ECF system. Assistant United United States Attorney SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN United States District Court, Southern District of

of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, I. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the R

entified individuals." The letter further proposed that the attorney representative for the victims be instructed that "[Otte details regarding the United States's investigation of this matter and its resolution with Mr. Epstein is confidential. You may not make public statements regarding this matter."" 62. O

espondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Privilege Log, which is attached hereto.

etter did not inform the victims of how this applied to them. '66 150. The victim notification letters also state that there was "litigation between the United States and two other victims regarding the disclosure of the entire agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein." The letters did not explain that

P-013872 E-mailil and p.m., FW: Lefcourt to Sanchez a 22, to Matthew ■ Any work-product May 22, 2007, 3:11 a Mi l with e-mail from , and Lilly Ann 2007 2:05 p.m. attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013873 E-mail 2007, 10:52 . e-mail from (May 14 2007 10:38 to and May 14, Any work-product RE: Oper

the planned indictment, the identified victims would have been eligible for restitution gad damages under Section 2255. As explained above, one of the United States' interests, which had to be satisfied by the Non-Prosecution Agreement, was providing appropriate compensation to the victims. This provision of "Ele

Jul 1 2007, meetin between FAUSA „ Criminal Chief West Palm Beach Chief AUSA • and two FBI agents who met with Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and Lilly Ann anchez. On at ate, the prosecutors presented a written, four-bullet-point term sheet that would satisfy the federal interest in the case and discus

internal as I tried to deal professionally with opposing counsel. In the midst of all of the post-NPA back-and-forth with Epstein, was the Jane Doe. United States litigation.4 Despite the Office's request to be recused from the case, the Justice Department decided that there was no conflict of interest and I w

gued above, but I will try to collect them into general categories in chronological order. 1. b. I did not want to meet with counsel for Epstein (Lilly Ann and Gerald Lefcourt) prior to completi.n investigation. My co-counsel agreed with me. Our supervisor, M, overruled us. and I did not want to h

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

(May 23, 2007, 5:00 p.m.), Andrew Lourie to Gerald Lefcourt (May 22, 2007, 6:32 p.m.), and Gerald Lefcourt to Andrew Lourie Marie Villafana, and Lilly Ann Any work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Waiver, Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney C