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

econd-guess the Executive's exercise of discretion over the initiation and dismissal of criminal charges." Id. at 738. 45 EFTA00299065 Although Fokker addressed DPAs, the same principles apply with even greater to force to NPAs, which typically involve no judicial supervision. By imposing the Epste

Accordingly, judicial authority is "at its most limited when reviewing the Executive's exercise of discretion over charging determinations." Id. In Fokker, the question before the D.C. Circuit was whether the district court had the power to decline to enter a speedy trial waiver because it believed tha

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

rges — no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring — lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion." Fokker, 818 F.3d at 742. The II EFTA00799835 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 408 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2017 Page 12 of 32 As to the third time p

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

rges — no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring — lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion." Fokker, 818 F.3d at 742. The 11 EFTA00591472 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 401-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 13 of 33 As to the third tim

the defense claim that this case "was, at heart, a local sex abuse case." Epstein Remedies Br. at 15 (quoting former First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sloman). Indeed, one of the experts that Intervenor Epstein hired represented to the Justice Department during discussions about the NPA that "[t]his is a

s. To be sure, judicial authority is limited "when reviewing the Executive's exercise of discretion over charging determinations." United States v. Fokker Servs. B. V., 818 F.3d 733, 741 (D.C. Cir. 2016). But Jane Doe 1 and 2 are not asking this Court to review any prosecutor's ultimate charging deter