Epstein Secrets

BNICK Scan A. KORNSPAH LARRY A. STUMPF MARIA NEYRA JACKS PERCZEK MARK A.J. SHAPIRO JARED BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN STUMPF September 1, 2009 Jeffrey Sloman, Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 RE: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jeff: JESSICA F

r: Jcffiey Epstein Kreusler-Walsh, Compiani & Vargas, P.A. 501 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 503 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913 Phone: (561) 659-5455 Jeffrey H. Sloman, Esq. U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 William Berger, Esq. Attorney For: E.

ffrey Sloman used similar language in tying the names of the "victims" to the basis for a potential indictment, a December 6, 2007 letter from Mr. Sloman to Mr. Lefkowitz at 2, 3; see atm your email to Mr. Lefkowitz and Mr. Black on August 14, 2008 at 3:27 p.m., where you state that the list contains

New York District Attorney. Sincerely, P. Le owitz, P.C. Cc: Martin G. Weinberg JPL/slm I Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit handed down prior to September 30, 1981, are binding as precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, Sag Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1207

iance with the USAO’s demand for the equipment. In late June 2007, defense attorney Sanchez requested an extension of time to comply; in informing Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie of the request, Villafaña stressed that “we want to get the computer equipment that was removed from Epstein’s home prior to th

o the victims regarding the upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided that victim notification could only come from a state investigator, and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist.” 352 Sloman replied, “Good.” 232 Villafaña told OPR that before the state plea hearing, she s

led Sloman stating that she planned to meet with the case agents to have a “general discussion about staying out of the civil litigation.” 308 Sloman’s draft also stated that Acosta had informed the defense in a previous conference call that the USAO would not accept a “gag order.” OPR recovered

was intended to be broad,” as well as being a “mechanism[]” to ensure that victims were treated with fairness. In denying the victims relief, the Fifth Circuit nevertheless concluded that the district court “failed to accord the victims the rights conferred by the CVRA.”346 In particular, the Fifth Circuit

States believes it has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that each of them was a victim of an enumerated offense." (emphasis added). First Assistant Jeffrey Sloman used similar language in tying the names of the "victims" to the basis for a potential indictment, see December 6, 2007 letter from Mr. Sloman to Mr

ffrey Sloman used similar language in tying the names of the "victims" to the basis for a potential indictment, see December 6, 2007 letter from Mr. Sloman to Mr. Lefkowitz at 2, 3; see also your email to Mr. Lefkowitz and Mr. Black on August 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM, where you state that the list contains

the New York District Attorney. Sincerely, Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. Martin G. Weinberg JPL/kla Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit handed down prior to September 30, 1981, are binding as precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. See Bonner v. City of Prichard. Ala. 661 F.2d 1206, 1207

te Burnett F OWL E RWH I T E All'otiNgTS AT LAW B URNETT MIAMI • F00 LAUDERDALE • WraT PALM UfA01 • 5T. PETER5OLMO 3067800201 December 7, 2007 Jeffrey Sloman First Assisiam United States Attorney United Stales Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jeff: 1-(466 P.002

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

(5th Cir. 2010) (Fifth Amendment rights of organization were violated when its name was listed among 246 unindicted coconspirators 'This opinion of the Fifth Circuit was made binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit pursuant to Bonner'. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en bane). 8 EFTA00