Epstein Secrets

of his obligations seriously and elect to err on the side of caution in making decisions that relate to the performance of his duties. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney By: A. Marie Villafafia Assistant United States Attorney cc: Karen Atkinson, Chief, Northern Division Jack Goldb

med Mr. Acosta's agreement to postpone the state plea deadline until after the matter was reviewed. On that same day, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Sloman responded in writing as follows: "Please be assured that it has not, and never has been, this Office's intent to interfere or restrict the 'review p

cument 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 09-CIV- 80591 — KAM JANE DOE NO. 101, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S NOTICE OF WITHDRAW', OF ARGUMENTS X THROUGH VII OF THE DEFENDANT'S MOTI

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

iolate the CVRA rights of either petitioner. EFTA00799825 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 408 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2017 Page 2 of 32 II. JANE DOE NO. 2 CANNOT INVOKE THE CVRA BECAUSE SHE OPENLY OPPOSED AND WAS HOSTILE TO THE PROSECUTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN Petitioners have not distinguished the

mited" discovery, petitioners want more, in the form of depositions of (I) FBI Special Agent E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall; (2) FBI S/A Jason Richards; (3) Jeffrey Sloman, who formerly served as both United States Attorney and First Assistant U.S. Attorney; (4) Matt Menchel, who formerly served as Chief of the Crimin

stion every factor considered by Mr. Acosta in deciding that a non- prosecution agreement was the appropriate course to take. Similarly, neither Mr. Sloman, the former First Assistant U.S. Attorney and former Acting U.S. Attorney, nor Mr. Menchel, the former Chief of the Criminal Division, were involve

on FLSD Docket 02/01/2016 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOE NO. 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR DEPOSITIONS OF GOVERNMENT WITNESS

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

late the CVRA rights of either petitioner. EFTA00591462 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 401-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 3 of 33 II. JANE DOE NO. 2 CANNOT INVOKE THE CVRA BECAUSE SHE OPENLY OPPOSED AND WAS HOSTILE TO THE PROSECUTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN Petitioners have not distinguished the