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: cc: Assistant United tares Attorney EFTA00213052 Exhibit 2 EFTA00213053 IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY

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

ew process for either Mr. Epstein or CEOS. I leave it to you and CEOS to figure out how best to proceed and will await the results of that process. Jeff Sloman, FAUSA EFTA00213086 Exhibit 9 EFTA00213087 Mr. Lefkowitz, 05/28/2008 04:51 PM To cc bcc Subject Jeffrey Epstein The United States Attorne

here was no "intended breach" followed by a meaningless "cure." During my conversation with Mr. Lefkowitz of June 12th regarding our fifth written Notice of Breach, and during the proceeding before Judge Marra, I heard again that Mr. Epstein had no intent to breach the Non-Prosecution Agreement but was merely r

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

here was no "intended breach" followed by a meaningless "cure." During my conversation with Mr. Lefkowitz of June 12th regarding our fifth written Notice of Breach, and during the proceeding before Judge Marra, I heard again that Mr. Epstein had no intent to breach the Non-Prosecution Agreement but was merely r

nto the Office's decision on what remedies it will pursue in connection with this most recent breach and any future violations. Sincerely, G By: Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney A. Marie Villafafia Assistant United States Attorney cc: Karen Atkinson, Chief, Northern Division EFTA00601532

ere was no "intended breach" followed by a meaningless "cure." During my conversation with Mr. Le fkowitz of June 12th regarding our fifth written Notice of Breach, and during the proceeding before Judge Marra, I heard again that Mr. Epstein had no intent to breach the Non-Prosecution Agreement but was merely r

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

here was no "intended breach" followed by a meaningless "cure." During my conversation with Mr. Lefkowitz of June 12th regarding our fifth written Notice of Breach, and during the proceeding before Judge Marra, I heard again that Mr. Epstein had no intent to breach the Non-Prosecution Agreement but was merely r