Epstein Secrets

-Justiee-Deparnnent-emitast-any-vistimsr including fer-example-Jane-Dee44-r abeut-their-views-en4he-nen-preseeutiem 26. On about December 6, 2007, Jeffrey H. Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit neting-the ttemeyie EpsteM-Ple-lette

ation would continue, possibly leading to a federal prosecution. Edwards Declaration at ¶ 8. a On about November 27, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Epstein, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit The e-mail-statedt—that-the-1478,Atiem

overnment reached any final mseimien-ef-that-investigatienr Edwards-Deelaratien-at--11-147 33. On about February 25, 2008, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay Leflcowitz„ a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit _.Bpsteinls—eriminal—defense eeunselr explaining that the Justice D

d these statements have frequently been based on discovery materials. See, e.g., Attorneys Say Miami Prosecutors Violated Crime Victims' Rights Act, Main Justice, March 22, 2011 (quoting Plaintiffs' motion asserting that the U.S. Attorney's Office "deliberately misled' them and claiming that the "only reason

lafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) < [email protected]> Thu, May 22, 2008 at 3:38 AM Original Message From: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Campos, Cyndee (USAFLS); Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Mon May 19 12:40:32 2008 Subject: FW: confidential communication F

imetable to the close of business on Monday, June 2, 2008, which is a full two weeks. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Jeffrey H. Sloman First Assistant United States Attorney cc: R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney Karen Atkinso

athetic" to our various federalism concerns, but stated that because you serve within the "unitary Executive," you. believed your hands were tied by Main Justice. You were also extremely gracious in stating that you did not want the United States to be "unfair". Although CEOS limited its assessment to the fe

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

solve this matter directly with you in the advance of further proceedings in Washington. Because it is clear that national policy, as determined by Main Justice, is not driving this case, the resolution of this matter is squarely, and solely, your responsibility. I know you want to do the right thing, and i

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

was up to whomever they asked.” The next day, Lefkowitz followed up with Acosta in an email: We appreciate that you will afford us as much time as Main Justice determines is appropriate for it to conduct a review of this matter. As you have suggested, we will initiate that review process with Drew Ooster

he evidence. EFTA00605401 KIRKLAND &ELLIS LLP Honorable R. Alexander Acosta December 17, 2007 Page 18 Kenneth W. Starr Jay P. Lefkowitz cc: Jeffrey H. Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney EFTA00605402

olicy issues raised by your Office's invocation of § 2255. It is common ground among us that § 2255 has not been the subject of policy guidance from Main Justice, over the long life of this unusual statute. It is therefore undisputed that we are sailing in uncharted jurisprudential and policy waters. This sh

one that date." October 18, 2007 email from Jay Lefkowitz to USA R. Alexander Acosta. On the same day, Mr. Lefkowitz confirmed with First Assistant Jeffrey H. Sloman that this postponement " will not affect when Epstein begins serving his sentence." 2 Correspondence from Jay Lefkowitz to ted November 8, 2007 ("

tatutes your Office had brought forth and to the application of those laws to the facts as presented, it is abundantly clear from Drew's letter that Main Justice is not directing this prosecution. In fact, CEOS plainly acknowledged that a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein would involve a "novel application"

lafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) < [email protected]> Thu, May 22, 2008 at 3:38 AM Original Message From: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS) To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Campos, Cyndee (USAFLS); Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Mon May 19 12:40:32 2008 Subject: FW: confidential communication F

athetic" to our various federalism concerns, but stated that because you serve within the "unitary Executive," you believed your hands were tied by Main Justice. You were also extremely gracious in stating that you did not want the United States to be "unfair". Although CEOS limited its assessment to the fe

(USAFLS) From: Sent: _Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:38 AM To: Subject: Fw confidential communication Original Message From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Mon May 19 15:37:30 2008 Subject: RE: confidential communication Original Message Fr

athetic" to our various federalism concerns, but stated that because you serve within the "unitary Executive," you believed your hands were tied by Main Justice. You were also extremely gracious in stating that you did not want the United States to be "unfair". Although CEOS limited its assessment to the fe