Epstein Secrets

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,

friend and law school classmate of ms. boyfriend, a fact she assiduously kept hidden from counsel. We also learned from Ms. that she shared with Ocariz the summary of charges the government was considering against Mr. Epstein. Even after your Office conceded that it was inappmpriate for its attorne

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

nt the unnamed women in claims against Epstein). 26. The next day, AUSA advised the defense that she was removing one of the alternatives to Mr. Ocariz from our consideration, on the basis that "one of his partners is married to an AUSA here," and explained that, because of that personal relationshi

y gave information about this case directly to the media—including to Landon Thomas, the senior business correspondent for the New York Times. AUSA David Weinstein spoke about the case in great detail to Mr. Thomas, and, although the USAO refused to provide any of this information to Mr. Epstein's defense team

osely and personally connected to Ms. Villafana's own live-in boyfriend. Upon learning of this fact, United States Attorney Alex Acosta removed Mr. Ocariz from consideration. Mr. Epstein's attorney, Joe Whitley, a former United States Assistant Attorney General, predicted that the unprecedented incorp

of the Agreement requires an unusual and unprecedented threatened application of federal law." I. The Alleged "Leak" to the New York Times. AUSA David Weinstein became involved in this matter in his capacity as back up for the District's Public Information Officer (NO). While the District's PIO was on annual

represented parties who must be contacted only through their counsel. Your concerns regarding the § 2255 litigation are unfounded. As you know, Mr. Ocariz had been told that he would be the attorney representative for the victims. As a matter of professional courtesy, he was informed that the Office d

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.

close to her would personally profit. Ms. inappropriately attempted to nominate Bert Oeariz liar attorney representative. despite t e act that Mr. Ocariz turns out to be a very good personal friend or ms. vmatcanis boyfriend, a fact she assiduously kept hidden from counsel. We requested alternate cho

the unnamed women in claims against Epstein). The next day, AUSA Villafana advised the defense that she was removing one of the alternatives to Mr. Ocariz from our consideration, on the basis that “one of his partners is married to an AUSA here,” and explained that, because of that personal relationship

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