Alleged Conflict of Interest and Attorney Selection Manipulation in Epstein Deferred Prosecution Agreement

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP this same individual would nevertheless be entitled to engage an attorney paid for by Mr. Epstein to recover $150,000 of damages from Mr. Epstein under § 2255 without ever alleging any injury. In fact, the defense was told that the only question Mr. Epstein would be permitted to ask before paying the girls is “ have you ever met Epstein.”. Thus, the Deferred Prosecution Agreement places identified individuals in a far better position than they would be in if Mr. Epstein were convicted at trial. 9. ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT TO SELECT LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. Mr. Sloman’s Letter: ¢ “Prior to any issues arising concerning the implementation of the 2255 provision, the SDFL unilaterally agreed to assign its responsibility to select the attorney representative for the alleged victims to an independent third-party.” See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman, p. 4, £.3. The Truth: e That such an assignment was the SDFL’s “unilateral” decision is false. Before the SDFL decided to assign selection of the “attorney representative” to an independent third party, AUSA Marie Villafana had already proposed an “attorney representative.” She - had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he had been recommended by a “good friend in the Appellate Division.” Ms. Villafana’s account was misleading, as it omitted that this “good friend” was her live-in boyfriend, and that Mr. Ocariz was his former law-school roommate. When we discovered this independently, we objected. Only then did the SDFL propose assigning the selection process to an independent special master and agree to amend the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Thus, while it may be true that the SDFL assigned its selection responsibility to avoid the appearance of favoritism, it did not do it “wnilaterally,” but, rather, only after Epstein uncovered the Office’s misleading disclosure and apparent conflict-of-interest. —_, 10. TIMETABLE FOR MOVING FORWARD. Mr. Sloman’s Letter: ¢ “On February 25, 2008, I sent you an e-mail setting forth a timetable for moving forward in the event that CEOS disagreed with your position. That time is now.” Id., p. 6. The Truth: e Mr. Sloman provides only part of the history of this case in order to justify his improper actions. He had stated he would close the investigation if CEOS told him to. However, CEOS at our very first contact said that under no circumstances did they see that as their HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012179