Epstein Secrets

Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:25 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Epstein Marie, are you back ? We need to spend some time together on the indictment. I

LP Response to Letter by FAUSA Sloman Dated May 19, 2008 In a May 19, 2008 letter to Jay Lelkowitz (See Tab I), SDFL First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sloman provided what purported to be a summary of the events that have occurred during the investigation of Mr. Epstein. Mr. Sloman's letter is fraught wi

independent third party, AUSA Marie Villafana had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he bad been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." Ms. Villafana's account was misleading, as it omitted that this

in a far better position than they would be in if Mr. Epstein were convicted at trial. 9. ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT TO SELECT LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. Mr. Sloman's Letter: • "Prior to any issues arising concerning the implementation of the 2255 provision, the SDFL unilaterally agreed to assign its responsib

ve" to an independent third party, AUSA Marie had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he had been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." Ms. account was misleading, as it omitted that this "good frien

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 “

ndependent third party, AUSA Marie Villafana had already proposed an “attorney representative.” She - had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he had been recommended by a “good friend in the Appellate Division.” Ms. Villafana’s account was misleading, as it omitted that this