Full Name:
Full Name: Lilly Ann Sanchez Last Name: Sanchez First Name: Lilly Company: Fowler White Burnett Business: 305 789-9279 Business Fax: 305-728-7579 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail Display As: Sanchez, Lilly Ann ([email protected]) Web Page: http://www.fowler-white.com EFTA00223745
Summary
Full Name: Lilly Ann Sanchez Last Name: Sanchez First Name: Lilly Company: Fowler White Burnett Business: 305 789-9279 Business Fax: 305-728-7579 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail Display As: Sanchez, Lilly Ann ([email protected]) Web Page: http://www.fowler-white.com EFTA00223745
Tags
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Technical Artifacts (5)
View in Artifacts BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
[email protected]Fax:
305-728-7579305 789-9279305-728-7579http://www.fowler-white.comRelated Documents (6)
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein
From: To: Subject: Jeffrey Epstein Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 20:51:45 +0000 Importance: Normal Mr. Lefkowitz, The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida was recently notified that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, at your request, intends to review certain aspects of the investigation involving Mr. Epstein's sexual conduct involving minor victims. Naturally, until the DAG's Office has completed its review, this Office has postponed the current June 2, 2008 deadline requiring compliance by your client with the terms and conditions of the September 24, 2007 global resolution of state and federal liabilities, as modified by the United States Attorney's December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. Sincerely, EFTA00214435
Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit
Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit The passage outlines a procedural battle over production of documents and metadata in a defamation case involving Alan Dershowitz. While it flags potential evidence that could expose communications or internal materials, it lacks concrete details about the content, dates, or parties beyond the litigants, limiting immediate investigative value. However, the mention of “control” and alleged refusal to produce metadata could merit follow‑up to determine what information is being withheld and whether it relates to broader controversies surrounding Dershowitz. Key insights: Plaintiffs allege Dershowitz is withholding documents and metadata under the claim of ‘control’.; The objection is framed as ‘word play’ and gamesmanship, suggesting possible intentional concealment.; Discovery objections focus on timeframe limits, implying plaintiffs seek records spanning an undefined period.
Attorney-client privileged email to Jeffrey Epstein (April 23, 2015)
The document contains only a standard attorney-client privileged header with no substantive information about actions, transactions, or relationships. It offers no actionable leads, novel details, or Email addressed to Jeffrey Epstein Sent by attorney Martin G. Weinberg Date: April 23, 2015
Alleged testimony that Jeffrey Epstein paid a 17‑year‑old $15k to have sex with Prince Andrew and flew other young women for similar encounters
The passage links Jeffrey Epstein to a claim that a witness was paid $15,000 to have sex with Prince Andrew at age 17 and mentions additional flights of young women for sexual purposes. It provides sp Witness alleges she was flown to London by Epstein and paid $15k to have sex with Prince Andrew at a Epstein allegedly arranged flights for other young women for sexual encounters Bradley Edwards is
To: "Paul Cassell"
From: To: "Paul Cassell" Cc: ' "Brad Edwards" Subject: : ovemments osition on Several Pending Issues? Still Waiting for Answer Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:56:28 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul, 1. Yesterday, I provided you with the name and phone number for OPR Acting Associate Counsel, who received your December 10, 2010 letter to Mr. Ferrer, asking for an investigation of the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution. 2. The government will not be making initial disclosures to plaintiffs, because we do not believe Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 applies to this matter. 3. The CVRA applies to the criminal case which has been filed in district court, where an individual is deemed to be a "victim," not any civil litigation which may be initiated to enforce those claimed rights. We do not believe there is any right to discovery in this case. Moreover, we do not believe that whatever Kenneth Starr or Lilly Ann Sanchez may have said to this office, or what this office said to Kenneth Starr or Lilly Ann S
Kirkland & Ellis Letter (June 19, 2008) from Kenneth Starr urging DOJ Deputy Attorney General to halt federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein
Kirkland & Ellis Letter (June 19, 2008) from Kenneth Starr urging DOJ Deputy Attorney General to halt federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein The document provides a detailed, contemporaneous account of alleged prosecutorial misconduct, a violated Non‑Prosecution Agreement, and mentions high‑level officials (Deputy Attorney General, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, former President Bill Clinton) that could be pursued for further investigation. It includes specific dates, subpoena details, and names of attorneys, offering concrete leads, but the claims are largely unverified and rely on the law firm’s advocacy, limiting its immediate explosiveness. Key insights: Letter dated June 19, 2008 from Kenneth W. Starr (Kirkland & Ellis) to Deputy Attorney General John Roth.; Claims that the federal grand jury investigation was re‑started in violation of a September 24, 2007 Non‑Prosecution Agreement with Epstein.; Alleges misconduct by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Villafana and Sloman, including alleged self‑dealing and conflict‑of‑interest.
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.