Epstein Secrets

ney Alex Acosta and his team into giving Epstein a sweetheart deal" has been soundly debunked; 11 EFTA00299031 there is no such evidence — NONE. Sloman, Alex Acosta Acted with Professionalism, Miami Herald Op-Ed, supra. The NPA was and is a valid and binding agreement. It contains no illegal provis

estigation was led by honorable federal prosecutors with outstanding reputations, including but not limited to: R. Alexander Acosta (U.S. Attorney), Jeffrey Sloman (First Assistant U.S. Attorney), Matthew Menchel (Chief, Criminal Division), Andrew Lourie (Deputy Chief, Northern Region), and AUSA Anna Marie Vil

nce value, the Government's 42 EFTA00299062 enforcement priorities, and the case's relationship to the Government's overall enforcement plan..." Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985). As such, the decision to prosecute is "particularly ill-suited to judicial review." Id. "Few subjects ar

ervices B. Y., 818 F.3d 733, 741 (D.C.Cir. 2016), quoting Newman v United States, 382 F.2d 479, 480 (D.C.Cir. 1967). As the Supreme Court noted in Wayte, "[j]udicial supervision in this area, moreover, entails systemic costs of particular concern. Examining the basis of a prosecution delays the crim

doesn’t try to do an end run.” That same morning, Epstein attorney Sanchez, who had not been involved in negotiations for several weeks, emailed Sloman, advising, “[I] want to finalize the plea deal and there is only one issue outstanding and [I] do not believe that [A]lex has read all the defense s

ather than pursuing litigation. Lefkowitz claimed that a requirement 136 Villafaña also alerted Sloman that a newspaper was reporting that defense counsel was writing a letter to Acosta asking for reconsideration of the requirement that Epstein regist

icy of prosecuting only those individuals who reported themselves as having failed to register with the Selective Service system. The petitioner in Wayte claimed that the self-reported non-registrants were “vocal” opponents of the registration program who were being punished for the exercise of their

r unless based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification. Id. These principles were reiterated in Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985), a case involving the government’s policy of prosecuting only those individuals who reported themselves as ha

d their rights associated with the agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion." Ex. N, Nov. 27, 2007 email from Sloman to Lefkowitz. Epstein's attorneys responded by citing to the Attorney General's Guidelines provision stating that there must be a charge filed in a

her the victims should be notified, despite the absence of a federal charge being filed. Indeed, on November 27, 2007, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Sloman advised Jay Lefkowitz by email that the Justice for All Act of 2004 obligated the United States to "notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming

ment's enforcement policy. All these are substantial concerns that make the courts properly hesitant to examine the decision whether to prosecute. Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08 (1985); see also Fokker, 818 F.3d at 737-738 (noting the long-settled understandings about the independence o

d their rights associated with the agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion." Ex. N, Nov. 27, 2007 email from Sloman to Lefkowitz. Epstein's attorneys responded by citing to the Attorney General's Guidelines provision stating that there must be a charge filed in a

her the victims should be notified, despite the absence of a federal charge being filed. Indeed, on November 27, 2007, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Sloman advised Jay Lefkowitz by email that the Justice for All Act of 2004 obligated the United States to "notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming

ment's enforcement policy. All these are substantial concerns that make the courts properly hesitant to examine the decision whether to prosecute. Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08 (1985); see also Fokker, 818 F.3d at 737-738 (noting the long-settled understandings about the independence o

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

k, 630 F.3d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing procedure for forfeiture). "[T]he Government retains broad discretion as to whom to prosecute." Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985) (quotation omitted). The CVRA expressly does not impair that broad discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6