Epstein Secrets

ments, and extend a very special thanks to Linda Stone for making this meeting happen. This meeting was

ttorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jeffrey Epstein Dear Messrs. Sloman, Menchel and Lourie and Ms. Villafafia: We write as counsel to Jeffrey Epstein to follow-up on our meeting on June 26, 2007. We thought the meeting

awoom RENATO C. STABILE slabIle&elcourIlawcorn FAITH A. FRIEDMAN [email protected] BY FEDERAL EXPRESS TELEPHONE FACSIMILE July 6, 2007 Jeffrey Sloman, Esq., First Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Menchel, Esq., Chief, Criminal Division The United States Attorney's Office Southern Distric

human cognition. Aaron Sloman's Cognition and Affect project has explored a space of architectures proposed as models for human minds; a sketch of Sloman's H-CogAff model is shown in figure 5. (FIGURE 5 OMITTED) This architecture appears to provide a framework for defining with greater precision than

t Par ;pc a Irerdo nine... a. Mancliette Randy Stone...! gik Marco RagessIno sc. RCM Cw o aces Se

-Justiee-Deparnnent-emitast-any-vistimsr including fer-example-Jane-Dee44-r abeut-their-views-en4he-nen-preseeutiem 26. On about December 6, 2007, Jeffrey H. Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit neting-the ttemeyie EpsteM-Ple-lette

ation would continue, possibly leading to a federal prosecution. Edwards Declaration at ¶ 8. a On about November 27, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Epstein, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit The e-mail-statedt—that-the-1478,Atiem

overnment reached any final mseimien-ef-that-investigatienr Edwards-Deelaratien-at--11-147 33. On about February 25, 2008, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay Leflcowitz„ a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit _.Bpsteinls—eriminal—defense eeunselr explaining that the Justice D

ention is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Stone' First Union Corp.. 371 F.3d 1305, 1309 (11th Cir

ttorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite-400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jeffrey Epstein Dear Messrs. Sloman, Menchel and Lourie and Ms. Villafafia: We write as counsel to Jeffrey Epstein to follow-up on our meeting on June 26, 2007. We thought the meeting

HERYL E. REICH rokfteelcourew.com RENATO E. STABILE FabliSokswilawoom FAITH A. FRIEDMAN IM•cimweelcoutlaw.com BY FEDERAL EXPRESS July 6, 2007 Jeffrey Sloman, Esq., First Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Menchel, Esq., Chief, Criminal Division The United States Attorney's Office Southern Distric

nterpreted "to have real and substantial effect," Stone'. I.N.S., 514 U.S. 386, 397 (1995), there can be

ith a copy of the prosecution memo related to the indictment. On September 7, 2007, Epstein's attorneys met with the U.S. Attorney, Drew Oosterbaan, Jeff Sloman, John McMillan, and I. Ken Starr presented federalism arguments, urging deferral to state prosecution. When those arguments failed, Epstein's attor

8-80736-CV-MARRA P-0 I 1789 EFTA00192835 Memorandum Subjeci Operation Leap Year: Notification of Breach USAO No. 2006R0 181 June 9, 2009 To Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney Robert K. Senior First Assistant U.S. Attorney Rolando Garcia Deputy Chief, Criminal Division, West Palm Beach Ka

amendment to have real and substantial effect." Stone v. INS 514 U.S. 386, 397 (1995). The legislative

d their rights associated with the agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion." Ex. N, Nov. 27, 2007 email from Sloman to Lefkowitz. Epstein's attorneys responded by citing to the Attorney General's Guidelines provision stating that there must be a charge filed in a

her the victims should be notified, despite the absence of a federal charge being filed. Indeed, on November 27, 2007, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Sloman advised Jay Lefkowitz by email that the Justice for All Act of 2004 obligated the United States to "notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming

amendment to have real and substantial effect." Stone v. INS 514 U.S. 386, 397 (1995). The legislative

d their rights associated with the agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion." Ex. N, Nov. 27, 2007 email from Sloman to Lefkowitz. Epstein's attorneys responded by citing to the Attorney General's Guidelines provision stating that there must be a charge filed in a

her the victims should be notified, despite the absence of a federal charge being filed. Indeed, on November 27, 2007, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Sloman advised Jay Lefkowitz by email that the Justice for All Act of 2004 obligated the United States to "notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming

AN DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID S. STONE L, I am a member of the Bars of New Jersey and N

was categorically denied by the Southern District’s then first assistant, Jeffrey H. Sloman, in an Op-Ed article in The Miami Herald on Feb. 15. Mr. Sloman correctly represented the existence of “significant legal impediments to [federally] prosecuting” what was a quintessentially state case. He also co

federal charges because Mr. Epstein had a “high-priced defense team.” This was categorically denied by the Southern District’s then first assistant, Jeffrey H. Sloman, in an Op-Ed article in The Miami Herald on Feb. 15. Mr. Sloman correctly represented the existence of “significant legal impediments to [federally]

476:22,24 551:17 559:20 560:7 620:23 621:24 STONE (1) subsequently (... standards (1) 560:13 561

2:3 623:12 618:17 slip (1) 472:14 483:18 515:17,21 626:1 627:8 signatures (2) 584:17 535:1 603:10 518:3 519:5,18 specify (2) 612:13 615:19 Sloman (2) sources (1) 520:15 521:6 557:16 558:16 signed (6) 465:18 614:24 518:23 521:10 524:4 specifying (1) 527:22 528:25 small (2) South (3)

ourt Records Page 20 of 20 COUNSEL LIST Sigrid Stone McCawley, Esquire [email protected]; sperkins@

gainst me during the negotiations. Q. Is this part of your work product that you're waiving right now? MR. SWEDER: No, no. A. My conversation with Jeffrey Sloman is not work product. MR. SCOTT: Here's a -- BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. What is the work product -- MR. SCOTT: Excuse me. Please review wo MwA HM B@ WHY