Epstein Secrets

otification would not be required by 18 USC §3771. Your office has come to a similar conclusion, see AUSA Alex Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Sanchez, pg 2. We are sensitive, however, to the adversarial litigation previously filed regarding other §3771 issues. Accordingly, we propose the followin

"learned from Mr. Epstein's attorney that the plea is scheduled to take place on Monday morning." I also understand that there is an entry on Judge McSorley's docket that a hearing is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Monday. Both parties have agreed that it is a material term of the Non-Prosecution Agreement

sed are important and must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness concerns." See December 19, 2007 Letter from U.S. Attorney Acosta to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez at pg 3. He also stated that he had spoken with AAG Fisher to ask that she review this matter and to expedite the process. Id. • In the beginning

oth unreasonable and unjustifiable to hold Mr. Epstein responsibleaseribe blame to Mr. Epstein never mind declare him in breach—with regard to Judge McSorley's nunc pro tunc order. June 15 Letter at 3. Frankly, I am confused as to how you could do so. Neither Mr. Epstein ,nor defense counsel had anything

ortant and must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness concerns." See Exhibit 6, December 19, 2007 Letter from U.S. Attorney Acosta to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez at 3. He also stated that he had spoken with AAG &Aver to ask that she review this matter and to expedite the process. Id. • In the beginning of

ppropriate. Eighth, it is both unreasonable and unjustifiable to hold Mr. Epstein responsible—never mind declare him in breach—with regard to Judge McSorley's nunc pro tune order. Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 3. Neither Mr. Epstein nor defense counsel had anything to do with and certainly no prior

ortant and must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness concerns." See Exhibit 6, December 19, 2007 Letter from U.S. Attorney Acosta to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez at 3. He also stated that he had spoken with AAG Fisher to ask that she review this matter and to expedite the process. Id. • In the beginning of

ppropriate. Eighth, it is both unreasonable and unjustifiable to hold Mr. Epstein responsible—never mind declare him in breach—with regard to Judge McSorley's nunc pro tune order. Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 3. Neither Mr. Epstein nor defense counsel had anything to do with and certainly no prior

ortant and must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness concerns." See Exhibit 6, December 19, 2007 Letter from U.S. Attorney Acosta to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez at 3. He also stated that he had spoken with AAG to ask that she review this matter and to expedite the process. Id. • In the beginning of Janua

ppropriate. Eighth, it is both unreasonable and unjustifiable to hold Mr. Epstein responsible—never mind declare him in breach—with regard to Judge McSorley's nunc pro tune order. Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 3. Neither Mr. Epstein nor defense counsel had anything to do with and certainly no prior

ortant and must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness concerns." See Exhibit 6, December 19, 2007 Letter from U.S. Attorney Acosta to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez at 3. He also stated that he had spoken with AAG Fisher to ask that she review this matter and to expedite the process. Id. • In the beginning of

ppropriate. Eighth, it is both unreasonable and unjustifiable to hold Mr. Epstein responsible—never mind declare him in breach—with regard to Judge McSorley's nunc pro tune order. Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 3. Neither Mr. Epstein nor defense counsel had anything to do with and certainly no prior

Andrew Lourie, overruled us. b. AUSA McMillan and I did not want to have a subsequent meeting with another set of attorneys for Epstein, including Lilly Ann Sanchez, Gerald Lefcourt, Alan Dershowitz, and Roy Black, that would also include Criminal Chief Matt Menchel. Over my objections, Mr. Menchel also instruc

ctim notifications (and, later, a Declaration in the Jane Doe litigation) based upon this understanding. When Epstein entered his guilty plea, Judge McSorley required him to file his federal Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Court since that formed part of the consideration for the state plea. I wanted

secution Agreement ("Part I"); (2) an October 2007 Addendum ("Part 2"); and (3)a letter dated December 19, 2007, from the U.S. Attorney to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez, counsel to Jeffrey Epstein ("Part 3"). EFTA00234649 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 2 of 4 4. On J

s Office about legal repercussions if he was not admitted to the program. I also discovered—again, not from Mr. Epstein or his attorneys—that Judge McSorley had modified Mr. Epstein's judgment motc pro tune to an "Order of Community Control I," which directly contradicted the terms of the Non- Prosecutio

secution Agreement ("Part I"); (2) an October 2007 Addendum ("Part 2"); and (3)a letter dated December 19, 2007, from the U.S. Attorney to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez, counsel to Jeffrey Epstein ("Part 3"). EFTA00213127 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 2 of 4 4. On J

s Office about legal repercussions if he was not admitted to the program. I also discovered—again, not from Mr. Epstein or his attorneys—that Judge McSorley had modified Mr. Epstein's judgment motc pro tune to an "Order of Community Control I," which directly contradicted the terms of the Non- Prosecutio