Epstein Secrets

the interest of fair and effective law enforcement within their individual judicial districts. USAM §§ 9-2.001, 9-27.140. As stated in the USAM, “[t]he United States Attorney is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such [prosecutive] authorit

the anonymity of his clients by preventing disclosure of their identities to the CVRA petitioners. See Response to Court Order of July 6, 2015 and United States’ Notice of Partial Compliance (July 24, 2015). It is noteworthy that in 2020, when OPR attempted to contact victims, through their counsel, for inte

to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker language that he proposed including in a revision to the NPA’s § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have “any insight” to offer.

a revision to the NPA’s § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have “any insight” to offer. On December 19, 2007, after Acosta and Sloman had a phone conversation with Starr and Lefk

008. After Epstein’s June 30, 2008 state court pleas, she sent out substantially similar notification letters to two victims who resided outside of the United States. 222 We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after

er to Deputy Attorney General Filip that Acosta made the decision together with the Department’s Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker. Acosta did consult with Mandelker about the § 2255 civil damages recovery process, but neither Acosta nor Mandelker recalled discussing the issue

ho advised him to make the following proposal [to defer notification to the State Attorney’s Office].” OPR found no other documentation relating to Mandelker’s purported involvement in the decision. 220 decision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is, amongst many other issues, properly w

is no evidence that the phone was used to induce the young women to do anything other than provide EFTA00225884 • • • Page 25 (1995) (quoting United States' Enmons, 410 U.S. 3%, 411-12 (1973)). In Enmons, the Court refused to accept the Government's "broad concept" of the Hobbs Act, because it would have

tation and Obscenity Section Criminal Division United States Department of Justice 1400 New York Avenue, 6th Floor Washington, DC 20530 Dear Ms. Mandelker and Mr. Oosterbaan: Facsimile: (213) 680-8500 Enclosed, please find our submission as discussed at the meeting. This submission includes a brief