U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 June 23, 2008 Jay Lefkowitz, Esq. Kenneth Stan, Esq. Kirkland and Ellis LLP 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Gentlemen: This Office has completed a thorough review of the U.S. Attorney's handling of the matter involving your client, Jeffrey Epstein. We have received and reviewed your letters of May 19, June 3 and June 19, 2008, the attachments to the June 19 letter, as well as your submissions to the Criminal Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office. Additionally, we have reviewed an extensive set of materials provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office and conferred with a number of highly experienced Department attorneys about this matter. The Deputy Attorney General has also been briefed. As you know, the Department of Justice vests considerable discretion in its U.S. Attorneys, and the Deputy Attorney General will intervene in only the most unusual of circumstances. We do not believe such intervention is w
Summary
U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 June 23, 2008 Jay Lefkowitz, Esq. Kenneth Stan, Esq. Kirkland and Ellis LLP 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Gentlemen: This Office has completed a thorough review of the U.S. Attorney's handling of the matter involving your client, Jeffrey Epstein. We have received and reviewed your letters of May 19, June 3 and June 19, 2008, the attachments to the June 19 letter, as well as your submissions to the Criminal Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office. Additionally, we have reviewed an extensive set of materials provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office and conferred with a number of highly experienced Department attorneys about this matter. The Deputy Attorney General has also been briefed. As you know, the Department of Justice vests considerable discretion in its U.S. Attorneys, and the Deputy Attorney General will intervene in only the most unusual of circumstances. We do not believe such intervention is w
Persons Referenced (3)
Tags
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Related Documents (6)
Defense Claims DOJ Official Misrepresented Deferred Prosecution Agreement Modifications in Epstein Case
Defense Claims DOJ Official Misrepresented Deferred Prosecution Agreement Modifications in Epstein Case The passage outlines a dispute over a purported modification to Jeffrey Epstein's Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) by U.S. Attorney Paul Acosta and SDFL prosecutor Michael Sloman. It suggests possible procedural misconduct or bad‑faith tactics by DOJ officials, which could be a concrete lead for further FOIA requests, interview of the attorneys involved, and review of the December 19, 2007 letter. While the actors are high‑profile (U.S. Attorney, federal prosecutors), the claim is not novel and lacks specific evidence of wrongdoing beyond contradictory statements, placing it in the strong‑lead range. Key insights: Sloman threatened to terminate the DPA unless Epstein complied with a 'unilateral modification' that defense says was never formally agreed to.; The defense asserts the December 19, 2007 letter from U.S. Attorney Acosta only proposed changes, which were rejected by defense counsel.; The SDFL allegedly refused to provide needed information for Epstein to meet the alleged new pleading and sentencing requirements.
Subject: FW: Vanity Fair magazine
From: To: Cc: Subject: FW: Vanity Fair magazine Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 19:47:26 +0000 Importance: Normal FYI - USAO response to Vanity Fair questions. From Se 11 3:46 PM To: Cc: Subject: Vanity Fair magazine Hi John. Hope all is well with you. Below, please find [in red ink] the USAO responses to your questions. s e Ho this helps. Take care, From• Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 1:51 PM To: Subject: From: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine Please confirm receipt. AUSA It was a pleasure speaking with you this morning. As per your request here are questions I would like to have answered for a piece I am researching on Jeffrey Epstein. As life would have it I am going to be on a busman's holiday this coming week on Singer Island, FL. I would like to meet you and whomever else you think I should speak with. If not, I understand perfectly. Let me preface these questions by saying that AUS.ei who was in charge of the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has a remarkably
EFTA Document EFTA01729176
Federal prosecutors allegedly back‑down on Epstein victim notifications after pressure from Epstein’s lawyers, with DOJ officials’ communications revealing internal conflict
Federal prosecutors allegedly back‑down on Epstein victim notifications after pressure from Epstein’s lawyers, with DOJ officials’ communications revealing internal conflict The passage provides concrete names (Jeffrey Sloman, Acosta, Lefkowitz, Starr) and dates (2008, 2013) showing possible obstruction of victim notifications in the Epstein case, suggesting a lead for investigating DOJ and FBI decision‑making. While it ties high‑level officials, the claim of pressure from Epstein’s attorneys is not yet corroborated, limiting the score to the high‑mid range. Key insights: Jeffrey Sloman, top aide to U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, planned to notify Epstein victims after a plea deal was signed.; Lefkowitz warned Acosta that the office had promised not to contact victims or potential claimants.; Federal prosecutors resumed the FBI investigation and interviewed witnesses in NY and NM while plea negotiations continued.
Prosecutors allegedly colluded with Jeffrey Epstein’s lawyers to downplay federal charges and secure a lenient plea
The passage alleges that senior U.S. attorneys and a federal prosecutor (Andrew Acosta, Paul Villafafia) worked with Epstein’s legal team to limit federal prosecution, manipulate venue, and keep victi Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Lourie attempted to strike references to a defendant’s prior sexual c U.S. Attorney Paul Villafafia negotiated with Epstein’s lawyers while an FBI investigation was act
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CI V-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE # I and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' FIRST REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT The United States (hereinafter the "government") hereby responds to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First Request for Admissions to the Government Regarding Questions Relevant to Their Pending Action Concerning the Crime Victims Rights Act (hereinafter the "Request for Admissions"), and states as follows:' I. The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. I. The government's res
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.