Epstein Secrets

nt of Justice. d1 Child Exploitation Obscenity Section. 42 Hon. Sigal Mandelker, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice. d3 Hon. Mark Filip, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice. PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL 9 EFTA00296187 CHRONOLOGY OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S DOCUMENT

5:23 pm Email from Indyke t , attaching drafts of In re Misconduct by First Assistant United States Attorney 190. 4/28/2008 Letter from Starr to Mandelker re: civil litigation by former firm 191. 5/16/2008 Fax with 5/15/2008 letter from to Lefkowitz re: propriety discretion to authorize federal pro

of 187. 3/28/2008 Letter from Starr to Mandelker42 and it: why case not appropriate for federal prosecution 188. 4/8/2008 Letter from Starr to Mandelker re: questioning the conduct of the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida 189. 4/14/2008, 5:23 pm Email from Indyke t , att

NS IN THE EPSTEIN, CO-CONSPIRATOR CASE PROVIDES YET ANOTHER LAYER OF CONCEALMENT Firstly the plea was signed by five DOJ Officials including Deputy AG Mark Filip, Alice S. Fisher, Assistant AG in charge of the Criminal Division and Sigal Mandelker, Deputy Assistant AG, among others. This means that these DOJ

s statement was an untruth. But let us presuppose for argument's sake that Acosta of his own accord failed to send out the letters. Then Fisher and Mandelker who were aware that the victim letters had not been sent as of April 28, 2008 should have caused Acosta to send the letters as required and thus pr

out and being sentenced. The victims would have also been notified of the plea agreement giving them time to attack the provisions. But Fisher and Mandelker didn't do so because they were confederates in a plot to subvert justice and concealment was paramount. Finally, it should be noted that it is hig

tant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker Deputy Assistant Attorney General Andrew Oosterbaan Chief, CEOS Office of the Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip Deputy Attorney General John Roth Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General A. February - May 15, 2008: Review by CEOS and the Criminal Divisi

to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker language that he proposed including in a revision to the NPA’s § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have “any insight” to offer.

a revision to the NPA’s § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have “any insight” to offer. On December 19, 2007, after Acosta and Sloman had a phone conversation with Starr and Lefk

notification letter and agree that the 323 In his June 3, 2008 letter to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, Sloman wrote, “Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker who advised him to make the following proposal [to defer notification to the State Attorn

er to Deputy Attorney General Filip that Acosta made the decision together with the Department’s Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker. Acosta did consult with Mandelker about the § 2255 civil damages recovery process, but neither Acosta nor Mandelker recalled discussing the issue

ho advised him to make the following proposal [to defer notification to the State Attorney’s Office].” OPR found no other documentation relating to Mandelker’s purported involvement in the decision. 220 decision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is, amongst many other issues, properly w