Epstein Secrets

ctored into the Office's decision on what remedies it will pursue in connection with this most recent breach and any future violations. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney By: A. Marie Villafafia Assistant United States Attorney cc: Karen Atkinson, Chief, Northern Division EFTA002345

statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to defense as 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

Ellts 02/291200803:11 PM Dear Alex, To [email protected] cc [email protected] bce Subject Fw: Epstein I received the attached email from Jeff Sloman this week and to put it mildly, I was shocked. As you will recall, back at the beginning of January, when we both agreed that there were significant

owitz and myself that any appeal to Washington would be undertaken expeditiously. On September 7, 2007,1, along withFAUSA Sloman, AUSAs McMillan and Villafafta, and FBI agents, met with you, Mr. Lefkowitz, and Ms. Sanchez. I understood that you wished to present federalism-based concerns regarding our pros

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

176 Draft of September 2009 letter from Marie Villafalia to Roy Black regarding breach of Non Prosecution Agreement with handwritten attorney (Villafafta) notes Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege Deliberative Process Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation

riate compensation to the victims. This provision of the Agreement was heavily negotiated. As Mr. Lefkowitz wrote in his November 29th e-mail to Mr. Sloman, which we received the same day as your letter, your client "offered to provide a restitution fund for the alleged victims in this matter; however

witz and myself that any appeal to Washington would be undertaken expeditiously. On September 7, 2007,1, along with FAUSA Sloman, AUSAs McMillan and Villafafta, and FBI agents, met with you, Mr. Lefkowitz, and Ms. Sanchez. I understood that you wished to present federalism-based concerns regarding our pros