Epstein Secrets

been provided with a copy of the prosecution memo related to the indictment. On September 7, 2007, Epstein's attorneys met with the U.S. Attorney, Jeff Sloman, , and I. Ken Starr presented federalism arguments, urging deferral to state prosecution. When those arguments failed, Epstein's attorneys stated t

Memorandum Subject Operation Leap Year: Notification of Breach USAO No. 2006R01181 June 9, 2009 To Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney First Assistant U.S. Attorney Deputy Chief, Criminal Division, West Palm Beach Chief Chief, Criminal Section I, No

IDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT EFTA00189787 and the United States. Accordingly, I recommend that we provide Epstein's counsel with Notice of the Breach at the hearing on June 12th, and proceed to indictment promptly thereafter. BACKGROUND In the summer of 2006, the FBI approached the U.S. Attorney'

ith a copy of the prosecution memo related to the indictment. On September 7, 2007, Epstein's attorneys met with the U.S. Attorney, Drew Oosterbaan, Jeff Sloman, John McMillan, and I. Ken Starr presented federalism arguments, urging deferral to state prosecution. When those arguments failed, Epstein's attor

8-80736-CV-MARRA P-0 I 1789 EFTA00192835 Memorandum Subjeci Operation Leap Year: Notification of Breach USAO No. 2006R0 181 June 9, 2009 To Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney Robert K. Senior First Assistant U.S. Attorney Rolando Garcia Deputy Chief, Criminal Division, West Palm Beach Ka

o. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-01 1790 EFTA00192836 and the United States. Accordingly, I recommend that we provide Epstein's counsel with Notice of the Breach at the hearing on June 12th, and proceed to indictment promptly thereafter. BACKGROUND In the summer of 2006, the FBI approached the U.S. Attorney'

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: Assistant United States Attorney cc: Chief, Northern Division EFTA00189939

tunc to an "Order of Community Control I," which directly contradicted the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. This required a fourth Notice of Breach and another claim that there was no "intended breach" followed by a meaningless "cure." During my conversation with Mr. Lefkowitz of June 12th rega