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

eason to believe that, around this same time, Mr. former law partner, Jeffrey Herman, had met with the father of one of the prospective plaintiffs, Saige Gonzalez.5 At the same time (and until as recent] as March of 2008), the Official Florida Bar websitc continued to identify Mr. as a named partner

information concerning specific federal statutes." Based on Mr. Thomas' contemporaneous notes. that assertion appears to be false. For example, Mr. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that federal authorities believed that Mr. Epstein had lured girls over the telephone and traveled in interstate commerce for the p

e negotiations of a deterred prosecution a reement. The consistent a re . resentations of ke Government witnesses (such as Tatum. Brittany Beak, Saige . and in) confirm the following critical points: First, there was no communication, totelephonic or otherwise, that meets the requirements of § 24

o believe that, around this same time, Mr. Sloman’s former law partner, Jeffrey Herman, had met with the father of one of the prospective plaintiffs, Saige Gonzalez.> At the same time (and until as recently as March of 2008), the Official Florida Bar website continued to identify Mr. Sloman as a named pa

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

e negotiations of a deferred prosecution agreement. The consistent representations of key Government witnesses (such as Tatum Miller, Brittany Beale, Saige Gonzalez, and Jennifer Laduke) confirm the following critical points: First, there was no communication, telephonic or otherwise, that meets the requi

c information concerning specific federal statutes.” Based on Mr, Thomas’ contemporaneous notes, that assertion appears to be false. For example, Mr. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that federal authorities believed that Mr. Epstein had lured girls over the telephone and traveled in interstate commerce for the pur