Epstein Secrets

TE OF FLORIDA no • '^cn, For Palm Beach County, at the Spring Term thereof, in the-year of our Lord Two ThouSg^d IWd Six. to-wit: The Grand Jurors of the State of-Florida, inquiring^ Beach, upon their oaths do present that JEFFREYX. EPSTEIN in> the County of Palm Beach aforesaid, inthe Circuit and State. aforesaid, COU

th State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State Attorney's Office,·•~t the interests of ihe United St,ates, the State of Fl9rid!I, and the Dc(en<hlnt will be· served by thc.{Qllowing procedure;. ' THEREFORE, on the authority of R.Alexander Acosta, United,States Attomey'for t

o tt:ie evil exc1mple. of. all ot_hers, ·and :against 'the:peace and:digr,,ity•of the State,· • '\ • • • - • • • • I '-. ,• • • • ,of Floriga, .I hereby c • • • • • . • • t~f.i~ '1(WYetUrn,ing this indictment as.au,ttiorfzed.and,required by'iaw'. , ' . : . ~ ... ·:; , . . ·- ,

The foregoi ng instru in ent was sworn to or affirmed b'eforeme this 1st day of May,ZOObyb) Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. State of Elorida County ofTa Im Beach Signatu^w^rr^stAig Officer Signature of Police-Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) Date: WOlgOW T’npe <>f 22 CA/Aronberg-000825 FILED: PALM

tch them have intercourse and masturbate himself. Occasionally, Epstein would then join in The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed State of Florida/ before me this I5* day of May, 2006 by County of Palm/Beach Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. /k I Signature/ ing Officer Signature of

STATE OF FLORIDA ] For Palm Beach County, at the Spring Term thereof, in the-year of our Lord Two Thousand and Six, to-wit: The'GrandjJurors of-ttie'.StaJe'of Florida; inquinngJmand (or the/body, of said County of PalrruBeach. ypon their paths do present that JEFFREYS. EPSTEIN in the'County of Palm‘Beach aforesaid,

ther underage girls to engage. in similar sex acts for money, He committed these offenses in locations including New York, New York, and Palm Beach, Fiorida. EPSTEiN is e~pecfed to be- presented in M~nh_attan fedt:?rc:il cggri this aftemopn before U,$, Magistrate Judge Hen_ry B, P_itman, The case is assi

e case through the NPA or in the negotiations leading to the agreement: former U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, and former AUSAs Jeffrey H. Sloman, Matthew I. Menchel, Andrew C. Lourie, and Ann Marie C. Villafana. Each subject submitted written responses detailing their involvement in the federal investigation of E

ttorneys to disenfranchise and silence the victims. It is unfortunate, and appears fundamentally unfair to the victims, that Acosta and Sloman (after Menchel and Lourie departed) took the unusual step of deciding to vet the USAO victim notification letters with the defense after the NPA was signed, but fai

the experience.feeling confused and believing she had been misled. OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Villafana, Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, or Lourie opted not to consult with the victims in order to protect Epstein or shield the NPA from public scrutiny. Although neither Sloman nor Acos

much less for the purpose of engaging in "illicit sexual conduct." To the contrary, the prospect that Mr. Epstein might engage in sexual activity in Florid was not the dominant motive—or even a significant motive—for his travel. See Mortensen I United EFTA00225877 • Page 32 Federal prosecutors have

sentence does not change the fact that the sentence was available to the State and rejected in its discretion. Therefore, Petite's presumption that the State of Florida's prior prosecution of Mr. Epstein has vindicated the federal interest cannot be said to have been overcome. • • Second, the State's proposed plea

it is whether they can require the defendant to serve a sentence that was not even "available" to State prosecutors. Id. In this case, however, Mr. Menchel has not asked for anything that State prosecutors could not have obtained. The fact that State authorities chose—for unquestionably legitimate reaso

without substantiation, that the proposed State plea agreement failed to vindicate the federal interest. On August 3, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Menchel rejected the State's new proposed plea agreement. He flatly stated that "the federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two year te

he pertinent federal statutes, and respectfully request that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General end federal involvement in this matter so that the State of Florida may resolve this case appropriately. Summary of the Facts Mr. Epstein has maintained a home in Palm Beach, Florida for the past 20 years. While the

creates a substantive right which prevents prosecution and conviction of an individual after the statute has run.” See State v. King, 282 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1973); Tucker v. State, 417 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1982) (citing cases). Given the one-year statute of limitations, any conduct that might amou

ed Epstein’s sentencing exposure...” See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman. In fact, by a email dated August 3, 2007, Criminal Division Chief Matthew 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. Mench