Epstein Secrets

agreement in a manner that ensured that the government obtained restitution, the DOJ attorneys violated the fundamental duty to provide the client (the United States) with competent representation. Despite this violation, OPR concluded that the DOJ attorneys did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor

question involved exclusively internal Department interests which do not appear to implicate a bar rule. In addition, OPR reviews reports issued by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) concerning Department attorneys to determine whether the relevant state bar counsel should be notified of the misconduct at issue, again purs

icitly admitted that BOP operations failed when it brought criminal charges against the two BOP officers on duty the night of Epstein's suicide. See United States v. Noel, No. 19-cr-830 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.). A recent report by the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General has revealed further problems at

cally, BOP contends that it cannot produce the SHU log books showing when prison staff did rounds on certain days because they "were handed over to the Office of the Inspector General (`OIG') on or about August 22, 2019," and therefore "the BOP is no longer in possession of the log books" (Christenson Decl. 1 13; Declaration of N

icitly admitted that BOP operations failed when it brought criminal charges against the two BOP officers on duty the night of Epstein's suicide. See United States v. Noel, No. 19-cr-830 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.). A recent report by the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General has revealed further problems at

cally, BOP contends that it cannot produce the SHU log books showing when prison staff did rounds on certain days because they "were handed over to the Office of the Inspector General (`OIG') on or about August 22, 2019," and therefore "the BOP is no longer in possession of the log books" (Christenson Decl. 1 13; Declaration of N

nt is made in the shortest time in which full payment can reasonably be made. (18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(2)) Payment plans should not limit the ability of the United States or the victim to immediately and fully enforce the restitution obligation using all available remedies authorized by law. G. Enforcement of Restitu

investigation. d. In the U.S. Marshals Service, the responsible official is the U.S. Marshal in whose district the case is being conducted. e. In the Office of the Inspector General, the responsible official is the Inspector General. Responsible officials may delegate their responsibilities under these AG Guidelines to subordi

described below. At the initial pretrial conference on November 11, 2019, Thomas, through counsel, raised the issue of an "ongoing . . . report" by the Office of the Inspector General and requested the "status" of the report and when it would be completed.4 (Conf. Tr., Nov. 25, 2019, at 3-4, 7-9). In response, the Government expl

tes v. Southland Corp., 760 F.2d 1366, 1372 (2d Cir. 1985) ("Ignorance of the law is no defense to a charge of purposeful and intentional action."); United States v. Rosenfield, 469 F.2d 598, 601 n.2 (3d Cir. 1972) ("As long as the inexcusable intent is present, it is not necessary that the defendant know that

■ As soon as practicable (but no later than 24 hours) report to their CEO (or other appropriate authority such as the Office of Internal Affairs or the Office of the Inspector General) any P3420.11 12/6/2013 5 SDNY_00008398 EFTA00033490 --- PAGE BREAK --- violation, appearance of a violation, or attempted violation of these

serve, other than on behalf of the United States, as an expert witness (with or without compensation) in any proceeding before a court or agency of the United States in which the United States is a party unless his/her participation is authorized by the Bureau. Authorization may be provided by the Bureau Ethics O