Epstein Secrets

SDFL) Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division Andrew Lourie, Chief of the Criminal Division Matthew Menchel I, First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey H. Sloman, United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta as well as various members of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) at the Department of

me AAG Fisher's Chief of Staff.2 Above Mr. Lourie in the SDFL's chain of command were Matthew Menchel, Criminal Division Chief, First Assistant USA Sloman and finally, U.S. Attorney Acosta. Prior to seeking approval to return an indictment, Epstein's legal team had been actively working to convince th

suggests that this is politically motivated because Epstein is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that 1/FAUSA Sloman unilaterally, arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed a June 2, 2008 deadline in order to prevent Epstein from see

(SDFL) Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division Andrew Lourie, Chief of the Criminal Division Matthew Menchel', First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey H. Sloman, United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta as well as various members of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) at the Department of

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) <1Sloman@usa.doj.gov> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 4:25 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: draft letter to DAG 57

suggests that this is politically motivated because Epstein is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that 1/FAUSA Sloman unilaterally, arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed a June 2, 2008 deadline in order to prevent Epstein from see

SDFL) Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division Andrew Lourie, Chief of the Criminal Division Matthew Menchel I, First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey H. Sloman, United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta as well as various members of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) at the Department of

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) <JSloman@usa.doj.gov> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 4:25 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: draft letter to DAG EXH

suggests that this is politically motivated because Epstein is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that 1/FAUSA Sloman unilaterally, arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed a June 2, 2008 deadline in order to prevent Epstein from see

in the federal investigation. The case was then assigned to AUSA Anne Marie Villafana, who was supervised by AUSA Andy Lourie and then First AUSA Jeffrey Sloman. Each of Mr. Epstein's attorneys, including Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, Alan Dershowitz, Alan Dershowitz's brother, Nat Dershowitz, Ken Starr, Jay

ively represent him in the civil litigation. In attempting to ensure compliance with the NPA's civil remedy provisions, both Ms. Villafana and Mr. Sloman repeatedly acted well beyond the scope of their authority as federal criminal prosecutors to assist civil litigants in the Epstein cases. Ms. Villaf

y as yet unnamed plaintiffs, and (3) the risk that the promise of uncontested damages may compromise so called "victim" testimony, all of which Mr. Whitley advised made it important that the NPA be reviewed at the highest levels of the Justice Department. See December 5, 2007 Memorandum of J. Whitley t

te Burnett F OWL E RWH I T E All'otiNgTS AT LAW B URNETT MIAMI • F00 LAUDERDALE • WraT PALM UfA01 • 5T. PETER5OLMO 3067800201 December 7, 2007 Jeffrey Sloman First Assisiam United States Attorney United Stales Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jeff: 1-(466 P.002

statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to defense ns a courtesy. in addition, First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree that Section 3771 applies to notice of proceed

r concerns on this matter. I respectfully request that you consider the issues I discuss below in conjunction with the ethics opinion of Mr. Joe I). Whitley that I faxed to your Office on December 7. Background of Negotiations believe it is important for you to be aware of the full scope and substance

tate that you intend to issue the victim notification letters o rda December 7. However, in a discussion late last week between Jeff Sloman and Mr. Sloman indicated that your Office would send us a revised version o e non on letter, which we have not received to date. ,While we believe that it is who

age 2 Finally, you state that you intend to issue the victim notification letters o rda December 7. However, in a discussion late last week between Jeff Sloman and Mr. Sloman indicated that your Office would send us a revised version o e non on letter, which we have not received to date. ,While we believ

e Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with

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

ed her for having spoken with him the previous day, reiterated the defense team’s various complaints, and asked her to meet with him, Lefkowitz, and Whitley. Meanwhile, Oosterbaan’s Deputy Chief drafted a decision letter to be sent from Oosterbaan to Lefkowitz, and over the course of several weeks, i

as much as 15 years." Fifth, "that your office told Mr. Epstein and his lawyers: we are ready to pull the trigger." Sixth, "I also wanted to ask Mr. Sloman about his role in a case involving Jonathan Zirulnikoff and his daughter earlier this year." At the outset, Weinstein said that he could not commen

e Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) <JSloman@usa.doj.gov> Tuesday, June 03, 2008 10:40 AM Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Campos, Cyndee (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USA

Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with p

our client to agree to unconscionable contract terms cannot square with the true facts of this case. As explained in letters from Messrs. Acosta and Sloman, the indictment was postponed for more than five months to allow you and Mr. Epstein's other attorneys to make presentations to the Office to convi

ent • The inclusion or Section 2255. a purely civil remedy. raises the risk of excessive government interference in private, civil matters. As Mr. Whitley states in his ;minion. . . .unnecessary entanglement of the government in such cases and the use of federal resources could improperly influence s