Epstein Secrets

oenas. See Tab 2], September 24, 2007 Non Prosecution A ement. It alsoguarantees that persons identified in the Grand Jury subpoena such as , and Leslie Groff and others will not be prosecuted. The new Grand Jury subpoena clearly violates the Non- Prosecution Agreement. Although Mr. Epstein has exercised

in the Grand Jury subpoena such as , and Leslie Groff and others will not be prosecuted. The new Grand

e. When asked, the closest case suggested by the prosecutors was United Stares v. Boehm—and it hardly could differ more from Mr. Epstein's case. In Boehm, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base to minors, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 859(a)

ion of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and sex trafficking of children in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1591. United States v. Boehm, Case No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Alaska 2004). Boehm's actions, unlike Mr. Epstein's, also had a strong interstate nexus: Boehm purchased and distributed

See Tab 21, September 24, 2007 Non Prosecution A reernenThiso_auarantees that persons identified in the Grand Jury subpoena such as Sarah , and Leslie Groff and others will not be prosecuted. The new Grand Jury subpoena clearly violates the Non- Prosecution Agreement. Although Mr. Epstein has exercised

ruction charges, many of the facts I included in that first proffer were hypothesized based upon our discussions and the agents' observations of Ms. Groff. We will need to interview her to confirm the accuracy of those facts. On a second count, we could rely on the incident where Mr. Epstein's private

re. When asked, the closest case suggested by the prosecutors was United States I Boehm—and it hardly could differ more from Mr. Epstein's case. In Boehm, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base to minors, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 859(a)

ral prosecutors have pursued under the federal sta tes at issue here. When asked, the closest case suggested by the prosecutors was United States I Boehm—and it hardly could differ more from Mr. Epstein's case. In Boehm, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base

ill not institute any Page 27 of 58 EFTA00225070 criminal char es a ainst any potential co-consgtors of E stein, including but not limited to M, Lesley Groff, or ' (Exhibit 52 at 5). To the extent that there was "criminal organization," the Office and the investigators considered Epstein to be the head

E stein, including but not limited to M, Lesley Groff, or ' (Exhibit 52 at 5). To the extent that the

e are several emails between myself and Jay Lefkowitz about the appointment of I GAL and the possibility of I restitution trust fund similar to the Boehm case out of Alaska. I obtained the trust fund agreement and spoke with the in Alaska. The trust fund a reement was very complex and required I bank

tation cases was I hot-button issue at the time. The District of Alaska USAO had multi-victim child exploitation case with I wealthy % defendant (Boehm) where they had set u trust fund with I bank and I trustee. With Drew help, I ex lored setting up I similar situation in the Epstein case (Exhibit

255 37 8/15/2007 Subpoena to Bear Stearns (return date 9/4/07) 8/16/2007 Subpoena to Adam Perrylang (return date 9/4/07) 8/16/2007 Subpoena to Lesley Groff (return date 9/4/07) 8/16/2007 Subpoena to Jean-Luc Brunel (return date 9/4/07) 8/16/2007 Subpoena to Harry Beller (return date 9/11/07) 8/16/20

Material EFTA00225440 EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION TIMELINE Date To From Re: Exhibit # 9/12/2007 A. Marie Villafatia Nathan Z. Dershowitz Ms. Groff will proceed by interview. 9/12/2007 Meeting (US: Andy Lourie, Rolando Garcia and Marie Villafafia, DEF: Jay Lefkowitz, Gerald Lefcourt and Jack G

e are several emails between myself and Jay Lefkowitz about the appointment of a GAL and the possibility of a restitution trust fund similar to the Boehm case out of Alaska. I obtained the trust fund agreement and spoke with the AUSA in 21 Mandatory restitution under § 3663A requires a conviction for

itation cases was a hot-button issue at the time. The District of Alaska USAO had a multi-victim child exploitation case with a wealthy defendant (Boehm) where they had set up a trust fund with a bank and a trustee. With Drew Oosterbaan's help, I explored setting up a similar situation in the Epstein

ept by or on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein, He Lesley Groff, and/or . This request includes information that

TO SUBPOENA OLY-65/2 NES, LLC diaries, or other records of appointmenis, travel, meetings and the like, kept by or on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein, He Lesley Groff, and/or . This request includes information that is kept in physical “hard copy” and/or electronic form, whether stored on a personal computer, data

impartial, independent representative be. appointed to administer that fund. Notably, such a restitution fund was created in a federal case, U.S. v. Boehm, Case No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Alaska 2004). The federal prosecutors here rejected this idea, and they insisted that an attorney representative, paid for

t will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adrian Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova. Further, upon execution of this agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury inves

not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adrian Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova. Further, upon execution of

interest in maintaining their privacy; (6) Experience litigating in federal court in the Southern District of Florida; Your letter references U.& 'Boehm, No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Ala 2004) as a model for a restitution fund statement I asked our prosecutor to contact the AlffiA in that case. In that matter

oenas. See Tab 21, September 24, 2007 Non Prosecution Agreement. It also guarantees that persons identified in the Grand Jury subpoena such i. | and Leslie Groff and others will not be prosecuted. The new Grand Jury subpoena clearly violates the Non- Prosecution Agreement. Although Mr. Epstein has exercised hi

d in the Grand Jury subpoena such i. | and Leslie Groff and others will not be prosecuted. The new Grand

ral prosecutors have pursued under the federal statutes at issue here. When asked, the closest case suggested by the prosecutors was United States v. Boehm—and it hardly could differ more from Mr. Epstein’s case. In Boehm, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base t