Epstein Secrets

it has identified. Because the information provided by these women goes directly to the question of Mr. Epstein's guilt or innocence, it is classic Brady information. We understand that the U.S. Attorney might not want to disclose impeachment information about their witnesses prior to a charge or dur

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

npersuaded by the letter and the presentation, but I agreed that I should carefully review transcripts of the recorded statements given to PBPD for Brady issues.15 Since witness credibility was clearly at the fore, I undertook efforts 14 The requested documents and items were never provided. 15 As th

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

it has identified. Because the information provided by these women goes directly to the question of Mr. Epstein's guilt or innocence, it is classic Brady information. We understand that the U.S. Attorney might not want to disclose impeachment information about their witnesses prior to a charge or dur

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

npersuaded by the letter and the presentation, but I agreed that I should carefully review transcripts of the recorded statements given to PBPD for Brady issues." Since witness credibility was clearly at the fore, I undertook efforts " The requested documents and items were never provided. 15 As the

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

r statements, their credibility and the foundations, if any, for claiming personal injury. Also, Mr. Epstein would have received, pursuant to either Brady or Jencks, material in the form of prior inconsistent statements made by these women before they learned of any financial benefit that may be avail

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 cast "This filing is made cx parte because Boehm, in his p

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

ed to provide the draft indictment. We understand that we have no statutory right to a FBI 302 that inculpates Mr. Epstein (although we believe that Brady principles would encourage the disclosure of FBI 302 reports that exonerate him). We are concerned that there is information that could be rebutted

thing. Therefore, we urge that you direct that a full and fair and complete examination of the most trustworthy evidence be ordered. 10 In U.S. v. Boehm, the defendant bought and distributed crack cocaine and cocaine to underage girls; admitted to knowing that the girls were underage; arranged for un

r statements, their credibility and the foundations, if any, for claiming personal injury. Also, Mr. Epstein would have received, pursuant to either Brady or Jencks, material in the form of prior inconsistent statements made by these women before they learned of any financial benefit that may be avail

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

s it has identified. Because the information provided by these women goes directly to the question of Mr. Epstein’s guilt or innocence, it is classic Brady information. We understand that the U.S. Attorney might not want to disclose impeachment information about their witnesses prior to a charge or durin

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