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

, that Epstein could've spent behind bars had he been prosecuted in the federal system. They're hoping that the correspondence, ordered released by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, will shed light on what they say is an unusually lenient deal. "I can say that I've been teaching criminal law for more than two decades and I hav

iance with the USAO’s demand for the equipment. In late June 2007, defense attorney Sanchez requested an extension of time to comply; in informing Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie of the request, Villafaña stressed that “we want to get the computer equipment that was removed from Epstein’s home prior to th

o the victims regarding the upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided that victim notification could only come from a state investigator, and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist.” 352 Sloman replied, “Good.” 232 Villafaña told OPR that before the state plea hearing, she s

led Sloman stating that she planned to meet with the case agents to have a “general discussion about staying out of the civil litigation.” 308 Sloman’s draft also stated that Acosta had informed the defense in a previous conference call that the USAO would not accept a “gag order.” OPR recovered

lack of clarity regarding when CVRA rights apply: the district court concluded that CVRA rights applied pre-charge, but a sharply divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals came to a contrary conclusion, a decision that has now been vacated while the entire court hears the case en banc. Because the Supreme Court had

proof beyond a reasonable doubt that each of them was a victim of an enumerated offense." (emphasis added). First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey Sloman used similar language in tying the names of the "victims" to the basis for a potential indictment, see December 6, 2007 letter from Mr. Sloman to M

frey Sloman used similar language in tying the names of the "victims" to the basis for a potential indictment, see December 6, 2007 letter from Mr. Sloman to Mr. Lefkowitz at 2, 3; see also your email to Mr. Lefkowitz and Mr. Black on August 14, 2008 at 3:27 p.m., where you state that the list contains

rt, f tomm 33113 Sol 316 EFTA00180359 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[w 'hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent fro

No, sir. 8 Q. How many women and how many men came to 9 your house? 10 A. I want to say two ladies and two guys. 11 Q. Did someone named Jeffrey Sloman come to 12 your house? 13 A. I don't know names, sir. 14 Q. Do you know who Jeffrey Sloman is? 15 A. No, sir. 16 Q. Do you know who Jef

GEM% FM1:433133 I of 311 EFTA00180412 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "Ewlhen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from