Epstein Secrets

on's theory of the case and the plea negotiations. 45. 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 tol

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

ions, but also sharing with him details about your Office's theory concerning what laws you believe Mr. Epstein has violated. In broad strokes, Mr. David Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that the Office was contemplating charging Mr. Epstein under Sections 2422(b) (with a full discussion of principal liability), 2423.

erest in maintaining their privacy; (6) Experience litigating in federal court in the Southern District of Florida; 2 Your letter references U.S I Boehm, No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Ala 2004) as a model for a restitution fund settlement. I asked our prosecutor to contact the AUSA in that case. In that matter

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 case: "This filing is made ex pane because Boehm, in his p

ards, and E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall regarding further investigation B-118 2/29/2008 Entails betweenJeff Montan, Marie Villatafia, Robert Senior, and David Weinstein regarding continuing investigation and status of CEOS review B-119 3/12/2008 Email from E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall to Marie Villafafia re affidavit fo

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

ions, but also sharing with him details about your Office's theory concerning what laws you believe Mr. Epstein has violated. In broad strokes, Mr. David Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that the Office was contemplating charging Mr. Epstein under Sections 2422(b) (with a full discussion of principal liability), 2423,

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

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

osecution’s theory of 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 t