Epstein Secrets

IVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL 9 EFTA00296187 CHRONOLOGY OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S DOCUMENTS Date Document 194. 5/28/2008 Letter from Starr and Whitley to Filip it: exigency of previous request for review 195. 6/12/2008, 2:56 pm Email from Epstein to Indyke, forwarding email attaching draft letter re: i

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

te plea comply with the terms of the NPA, or “we will consider it a breach of the agreement and proceed accordingly.”171 Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR he had never heard of Epstein before receiving Starr’s letter. Following the office’s standard protocol, Starr’s letter was handled by Joh

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

uted and sent to jail too, but you know the husband’s willing to go and take the weight . . . . This is not one of those. Deputy Attorney General Filip called the provision “pretty weird.” Menchel’s successor as Criminal Chief told OPR that he had never heard of such a thing in his 33 years of exp

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