Epstein Secrets

ena to Good Samaritan Hospital (return date 9/22/06) 9/21/2006 Subpoena to The Dalton School (return date 9/29/09) 9/26/2006 Acosta, Mulvihill, Sloman, Nom, Waters , Lowrie ' Stefin, Atkinson, Garcia, Brown, Boscovich, Martinez Villafana Memo regarding changes to Child Exploration Statutes in

bpoena to Paul A. Lavery (return date 5/29/07) 59 5/22/2007 Andrew Lourie Gerald B. Lefcourt Letter requesting to meet with Matthew Menchel and Jeffrey Sloman and Alex Acosta prior to an indictment being filed 28 5/22/2007 Matthew Menchel and Jeff Sloman; cc: A. Marie Villafaiia . Andrew Loune Emai

ileged Confidential Page 30 of 51 Contains 6(e) Material EFTA00224972 EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION TIMELINE Date To From Re: Exhibit # 2/26/2008 Sloman, Senior Villafana Email response with concerns regarding allowing Epstein to keep the same as before 115 2/27/2008 Lefkowitz Sloman Email - 2

nity control," and agree that the girls are victims for purposes of damages. Also includes deadlines for a plea and sentencing date 46 9/11/2007 A. Oosterbaan A. Marie Villafaila Email re status of negotiations with attached correspondence 48 9/11/2007 Lefcourt Villafafia Email with 4 page NPA attac

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Sloman. Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 5:26 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) Subject: Fw: Epstein Fyi Se

bpoena to Paul A. Lavery (return date 5/29/07) 59 5/22/2007 Andrew Cootie Gerald B. Lefcourt Letter requesting to meet with Matthew Menchel and Jeffrey Sloman and \ lc\ Acosta prior to an indictment being filed 28 5/22/2007 Matthew Menchel and Jeff Sloman; cc: A. Marie Villafalia Andrew Laurie Email

/2008 VilLiana letter to Capt. Sleeth, Palm Beach Sheriffs Office, mganling Epstein's work release application 85 6/9/2009 Vadatla Memorandum to Sloman, Senior, Garcia, awl Atkinson seeking permission to declare breach with attachments awl proposal breach letter 86 6/9/2009 Signed indictment packa

nity control," and agree that the girls are victims for purposes of damages. Also includes deadlines for a plea and sentencing date 46 9/11/2007 A. Oosterbaan A. Marie Villafaiia Email re status of negotiations with attached correspondence 48 9/11/2007 Lefcourt Villafatia Email with 4 page NPA attac

orized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Box #2 P-008517 Thru P-008535 6/25/2007 Letter from Gerald Lefcourt to Jeffrey Sloman and Andrew Lourie [pursuant to Court's Order, not being withheld as privileged — will be produced to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by I Ith

onship; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Suppl. Box #3 P-013334 Thru File folder entitled "11/13/07 Sloman to Lefkowitz (was this sent?)" containing draft 11/13/07 letter from J. Sloman Attorney-Client Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings

ation; Ordinary Government ■ 11/28/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to Investigative Privilege Communication; No Attorney-Client A. Marie Villafafia, A. Oosterbaan, R. Garcia re non-prosecution agreement, with attached correspondence; Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against P

negotiations Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege 12 8/3/2007 Email from Marie Villafafia to Matt Menchel, Andrew Lourie, Jeff Sloman, and Karen Atkinson regarding draft response to correspondence from Epstein counsel and planned investigative steps if agreement cannot be reache

request to delay his change of plea WP DP 83 11/2/2007-11/5/2007 emails between AMCV and Jeff Sloman regarding drafting 11/5/2007 letter from Sloman to Lefkowitz WP DP 84 11/5/2007-11/7/2007 emails from AMCV to Jeff Sloman inquiring about status of matter and contact by Epstein investigators

x #3 P-013554 Thai File folder labeled "E-mails Re Plea Negotiations" containing: ■ 11/28/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to A. Marie Villafafta, A. Oosterbaan, R. Garcia re non-prosecution agreement, with attached correspondence; ■ 9/19/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Louric, R. Garcia, K. A

orized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Box #2 P-008517 Thru P-008535 6/25/2007 Letter from Gerald Lefcourt to Jeffrey Sloman and Andrew Lourie [pursuant to Court's Order, not being withheld as privileged — will be produced to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by 11th C

onship; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Suppl. Box #3 P-013334 Thru File folder entitled "11/13/07 Sloman to Leflcowitz (was this sent?)" containing draft 11/13/07 letter from J. Sloman Attorney-Client Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinning

ation; Ordinary Government ■ 11/28/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to Investigative Privilege Communication; No Attorney-Client A. Marie Villafatia, A. Oosterbaan, IL Garcia re non-prosecution agreement, with attached correspondence; Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Pub

er with attorney handwritten notes Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Suppl. Box #3 P-013334 Thru P-013337 File folder entitled "11/13/07 Sloman to Lefkowitz (was this sent?)" containing draft 11/13/07 letter from J. Sloman responding to J. Lefkowitz's letter Attorney-Client Privilege Wo

x #3 P-013554 Thru File folder labeled "E-mails Re Plea Negotiations" containing: ■ 11/28/07 e-mail from A. Laurie to A. Marie Villafafta, A. Oosterbaan, R. Garcia re non-prosecution agreement, with attached correspondence; ■ 9/19/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Lourie, R. Garcia, K. A

t responds to CEOS’s assessment of its limited review of Mr. Epstein’s case; and a point-by- point rebuttal to First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey Sloman’s recent letter which we believe contains factual inaccuracies typical of our correspondence from the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (the “

ely aware, the Department’s prior review of this matter was incomplete and, by its own admission, not “de novo.” See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from A. Oosterbaan. Without considering the Non Prosecution Agreement that left this matter to be resolved in the State or any of the misconduct, CEOS reviewers, tasked

t responds to CEOS’s assessment of its limited review of Mr. Epstein’s case; and a point-by- point rebuttal to First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey Sloman’s recent letter which we believe contains factual inaccuracies typical of our correspondence from the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (the “

ely aware, the Department’s prior review of this matter was incomplete and, by its own admission, not “de novo.” See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from A. Oosterbaan. Without considering the Non Prosecution Agreement that left this matter to be resolved in the State or any of the misconduct, CEOS reviewers, tasked