Epstein Secrets

ein had proposed "house arrest" with extra 9 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001662 EFTA00209841 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP strip ent conditions—which Mr. Weinstein could only have learned from FAUSA AUSA or United States Attorney Acosta himself. 46. AUSA Weinstein then asked why Mr. Epstein should ... be tre

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

unication to Epstein's counsel, the Office continued towards indictment. On February 27 and 28, 2008, FAUSA , Criminal Chief = Civil Rights Chief Weinstein, and I communicated about the USAM requirement that DOJ's Civil Rights Section be consulted when violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 are included in an i

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

nd 1591. He also complained about Mr. Epstein's lawyers and told Mr. Thomas not to "believe the spin from Mr. Epstein's high priced attorneys." Mr. Weinstein even Informed Mr. Thomas that we had "asked for privately paid armed guards* as part of a house arrest proposal we had made. Even more surprising, h

erest in maintaining their privacy; (6) Experience litigating in federal court in the Southern District of Florida; 2 Your letter references U.S I Boehm, No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Ala 2004) as a model for a restitution fund settlement. I asked our prosecutor to contact the AUSA in that case. In that matter

ter handled between Mr. Epstein and the victims' representatives, and that this Office should not act as intermediary. Finally, I would note that in Boehm as well, the victims' identities were not initially disclosed. As the AUSA wrote in that case: "This filing is made ex pane because Boehm, in his p

/2008 Email chain between Marie Villatana, David Weinstein, and Bob Senior re email to the Civil Rights Chi

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

quantum craziness of reality was taken by an unlikely explorer, Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac. In one sense, Dirac was the perfect man for the job. As Einstein is re- puted to have later said of him, "This balancing on the dizzying path between genius and madness is awful! When I think of Dirac, an old jok

and Marshak decided to save it for a presentation at an international conference in Italy in the fall. Learning of the new experimental data from Boehm, Feynman decided—rather excitedly—that his ideas were correct and began to write a paper on the subject. Gell-Mann, who was competitive in the extr

and 1591. He also complained about Mr. Epstein's lawyers and told Mr. Thomas not to "believe the spin from Mr. Epstein's high priced attorneys? Mr. Weinstein even informed Mr. Thomas that we had "asked for privately paid armed guards" as part of a house arrest proposal we had made. Even more surprising, h

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

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

the case and the plea negotiations. Mr. Thomas’s calls to the USAO initially were referred to Assistant United States Attorney David Weinstein. AUSA Weinstein informed Mr. Thomas that federal authorities were considering charging Mr. Epstein under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422 and 2423, and told the reporter that