Epstein Secrets

rms and conditions of the Agreement, as modified by the USA's December 19th letter to Ms. Sanchez. 08-80736-Ce-MARRA P-014949 EFTA00224736 AUSA David Weinstein became involved in this matter in his capacity as back up for the District's Public Information Officer (PIO). While the District's PIO was on annua

suggests that this is politically motivated because Epstein is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that 1/FAUSA Sloman unilaterally, arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed a June 2, 2008 deadline in order to prevent Epstein from see

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

y as yet unnamed plaintiffs, and (3) the risk that the promise of uncontested damages may compromise so called "victim" testimony, all of which Mr. Whitley advised made it important that the NPA be reviewed at the highest levels of the Justice Department. See December 5, 2007 Memorandum of J. Whitley t

one week to comply with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, as modified by the USA's December I 9th letter to Ms. Sanchez. 8 EFTA00190445 AUSA David Weinstein became involved in this matter in his capacity as back up for the District's Public Information Officer (PIO). While the District's PIO was on annua

suggests that this is politically motivated because Epstein is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that 1/FAUSA Sloman unilaterally, arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed a June 2, 2008 deadline in order to prevent Epstein from see

s of the Agreement requires an unusual and unprecedented threatened application of federal law." 1. The Alleged teak' 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 (PIO). While the District's PIO was on annua

Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with p

of the Agreement requires an unusual and unprecedented threatened application of federal law." 1. 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 (PIO). While the District's PIO was on annua

e Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with

enns and conditions of the Agreement, as modified by the USA's December 10 letter to Ms. Sanchez. 08-80736-C8V-MARRA P-014949 EFTA00225336 AUSA David Weinstein became involved in this matter in his capacity as back up for the District's Public Information Officer (PIO). While the District's PIO was on annua

suggests that this is politically motivated because Epstein is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that 1/FAUSA Sloman unilaterally, arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed a June 2, 2008 deadline in order to prevent Epstein from see

s of the Agreement requires an unusual and unprecedented threatened application of federal law." 1. 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 (PIO). While the District's PIO was on annua

Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with p

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.

r concerns on this matter. I respectfully request that you consider the issues I discuss below in conjunction with the ethics opinion of Mr. Joe I). Whitley that I faxed to your Office on December 7. Background of Negotiations believe it is important for you to be aware of the full scope and substance

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

e Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with

Kenneth W., Starr Joe D, Whitley Kirkland & Ellis LLP Alston & Bird LLP 777 South Figueroa Street The Atlantic Building Los Angeles, CA 90017-5800 050 F Street, NW Phone: 213-680-8440

19, 2008 Page 7 Government’s confidential “list of victims.” Most of these lawsuits seek $50 million in money damages.* »* Assistant U.S. Attorney David Weinstein spoke about the case in great detail to Landon Thomas, a reporter with the New. York Times, and revealed confidential information about the Governmen