Epstein Data Wiki

EFTA01660165

Properties1
tagsdocument, correspondence, usao-sdfl, 2007-2008-npa-negotiation, jeffrey-epstein, alan-dershowitz

25 min read

What it isA 23-page letter arguing that federal charges against Jeffrey Epstein under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) would not lie, and that prosecutorial discretion favors declining to charge him1
FromLaw Offices of Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C., New York; signed by Gerald B. Lefcourt and Alan Dershowitz12
ToFour officials of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida: Jeffrey Sloman, First Assistant United States Attorney, and Matthew Menchel, Chief, Criminal Division, at the Miami office; Andrew Lourie, Deputy Chief, Northern Region, and A. Marie Villafaña, Assistant United States Attorney, at the West Palm Beach office. All four names are blacked out in this copy; other copies of the same letter in the release print them in the clear13
DateJuly 6, 2007; sent by Federal Express1
Follows up on”our meeting on June 26, 2007,” which the letter calls “extremely productive”1
ccLilly Ann Sanchez, Esq.; Roy Black, Esq.2
Onward handlingForwarded by email eleven days later, July 17, 2007, from an address tagged “(USAFLS),” subject “Lefcourt/Dershowitz,” attaching “Lefcourt-ltr.pdf”; the sender’s name and address and the single recipient address are blacked out, so the image does not establish who received it4
Government’s later characterizationIn a 2016 filing in the CVRA litigation, the United States admitted this July 6, 2007 letter was sent by Gerald Lefcourt and Alan Dershowitz to “four members” of the office5
Not established hereWhether or how the office replied in writing to this letter

EFTA01660165 is a 23-page letter, Bates-stamped EFTA01660165 through EFTA01660187, in Data Set 10, from the Law Offices of Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C. to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, dated July 6, 2007.1 It is one side’s argument against pursuing federal charges, addressed to the officials with authority to decide whether to bring them. It is not a fact, not a finding, and not evidence of anything but the argument, and this page attributes every claim in it to the firm.

Who wrote it, and to whom

The letterhead reads “LAW OFFICES OF GERALD B. LEFCOURT, P.C., A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, 148 East 78th Street, New York, New York 10021,” listing four attorneys: Gerald B. Lefcourt, Sheryl E. Reich, Renato C. Stabile and Faith A. Friedman.1 It was sent “BY FEDERAL EXPRESS” to four recipients in two blocks, every name blacked out in this copy: the first block, addressed to the office’s Miami location at 99 NE 4th Street, reads “[redacted], Esq., First Assistant United States Attorney” and “[redacted], Esq., Chief, Criminal Division”; the second, addressed to the office’s West Palm Beach location at 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400, reads “[redacted], Deputy Chief, Northern Region” and “[redacted], Assistant United States Attorney,” these two lines carrying no “Esq.” after the box.1 The salutation reads “Dear Messrs. [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted] and Ms. [redacted]:”1

The four addressees are not unresolved in the record. The release holds seven further copies of this same letter, and on three of them the addressee block is printed rather than blacked out: two print all four names complete, and the third prints them but for a box over part of one given name. It was addressed to Jeffrey Sloman, Esq., First Assistant United States Attorney, and Matthew Menchel, Esq., Chief, Criminal Division, at the Miami office, and to Andrew Lourie, Deputy Chief, Northern Region, and A. Marie Villafaña, Assistant United States Attorney, at West Palm Beach; the salutation there reads “Dear Messrs. Sloman, Menchel and Lourie and Ms. Villafaña:”.3 All four were serving officials of the office at the time, addressed in their official capacities. The Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility report records that the line prosecutor’s May 1, 2007 prosecution memorandum, nine weeks before this letter, was “directed to Acosta, Sloman, Menchel (who had replaced Sloman as the USAO’s Criminal Division Chief the previous October, when Sloman became the FAUSA), Lourie, and her immediate supervisor” — three of the letter’s four addressees, two of them, Sloman and Menchel, in the posts the letter gives them, and the third, Lourie, named on that page without a post; the fourth addressee is Villafaña, whom that report names as the memorandum’s author. That page of the report carries surnames only.6

The letter opens: “We write as counsel to [redacted] Epstein to follow-up on our meeting on June 26, 2007. We thought the meeting was extremely productive and appreciate your giving us the opportunity to engage you on the facts, law and policy that will inform any decision you make on how and whether to proceed.”1 A short redaction box sits between “to” and “Epstein” in that sentence; the subject line above it, set off and italicized, reads “Jeffrey Epstein” in the clear.1 Copies of the same letter elsewhere in the release print the sentence complete, as “We write as counsel to Jeffrey Epstein to follow-up on our meeting on June 26, 2007.”3

Section I: the statutory argument

The letter’s first and longer argument, headed “I. 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) Has No Applicability to the Facts Here,” runs from page 1 to page 17 in six numbered subsections and contends that the statute — which the letter notes then carried a five-year mandatory minimum, since raised to ten years by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 — cannot reach Epstein’s conduct as a matter of statutory construction.17 Its central contention is that the statute requires use of an interstate facility to do the persuading, enticing, inducing or coercing itself, not merely to arrange a later meeting, and that conduct of this kind belongs to the states: “The bulk importation of complex bodies of state law is highly problematic, and strongly counsels that such matters should be left to the states except in those rare circumstances where both a federal interest is clear and weighty, and the states are for some reason incapable of acting. Like issues of family law, these issues are quintessentially of state concern within our federal system.”8 The letter argues that reading the statute more broadly would sweep in conduct Congress did not intend, illustrating the point with a hypothetical prosecution of a man who telephones to arrange a date with a 15-year-old prostitute in New York, calling the resulting ten-year mandatory sentence an outcome “Congress did not contemplate.”8

Arguing that the government cannot show Epstein shared the requisite knowledge and intent with anyone who made a call on his behalf, a footnote states that a woman, identified in this copy only as “Ms. [redacted],” her name blacked out throughout the footnote, “may claim to have made” calls “to solicit persons to massage Mr. Epstein,” and that although she “may have known the actual ages of the women whom she called… and may therefore have known that one or more was in fact under 18, she was clear in speaking to detectives that she never communicated such information to Mr. Epstein,” citing a “Video Interview” of her, also redacted by name, on October 3, 2005.9 This page reports that as the firm’s characterization of what it says the interview shows; it has not seen the interview itself, does not identify the woman, and does not repeat anything else attributed to her account. Arguing more broadly that Epstein “never targeted minors,” the letter states: “what he did — at worst — was akin to putting up a sign saying to all, come in if you are interested in giving a massage for $200. A few among those who accepted the general invitation may have in fact been under 18 (though they lied about that age and said they were 18).”10 That is the firm’s characterization, disputing that Epstein knowingly solicited anyone under 18; this page does not adopt it, and it names no one to whom it might refer.

The section closes on page 16 with a subsection headed “6. Conclusion,” arguing that in Epstein’s case “there was no use of the internet to induce, etc., and, given the legislative history and purpose, that is itself dispositive.”11 The argument runs on to page 17, where the letter contends that any face-to-face persuasion within Epstein’s own home did not use an interstate facility either and that “[i]f such conduct constituted a crime, it would be a classic state offense.”12

Section II: discretion and personal history

The letter’s second heading, “II. Mr. Epstein Warrants Declination to Prosecute as Exercise of Discretion,” opens: “We believe strongly that no federal case would lie under the facts here. Moreover, as we discussed, there is a pending state case against Mr. Epstein which can be resolved in a way that vindicates the state’s rights and obligations in this matter.”12 It then argues that “having a greater understanding of who Jeffrey Epstein is as a person may help inform how best to proceed,” and gives an account of his upbringing in “a middle class neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York,”12 his start “in 1976 at the age of 23 as a floor trader’s junior assistant” at Bear Stearns, and a lengthy list of philanthropic and personal acts the firm offers in his favor: paying for a former employee’s son’s cancer treatment and, later, private schooling; paying for two employees’ and a consultant’s infertility treatments; arranging a visa and travel for the sister-in-law of a building workman whose wife needed a kidney donor; funding scholarships, including for two Rwandan students the letter says he offered to fund on “a trip to Rwanda to inspect the genocide camps” and whom, it adds, he “did not meet until after their second year of studies”; and describing him as “now the godfather of the employee’s seven-year old twins.”1314 Among the acts listed, the letter states that Epstein “has been meeting monthly with a teenage building workman whose expenses of vocational school are being paid by Mr. Epstein,” reviewing “the workman’s school progress” and discussing “career opportunities” with him each month, and that Epstein “blocks out time each week to meet with young professionals to discuss their career prospects.”15 This page reports these as claims the firm made in support of its client, not as findings; it does not identify the employee, the workman, or anyone else the letter describes without a full name.

The letter goes on to list Epstein’s giving to named organizations — among them America’s Agenda, Robin Hood, the Alliance for Lupus Research, Friends of Israel Defense Forces, the Jewish National Fund and the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund — and quotes a description of Epstein by former President Clinton from a New York Magazine profile as “a committed philanthropist with a keen sense of global markets and an in-depth knowledge of twenty-first-century science,” attributing it to a month-long trip to Africa Epstein hosted with Clinton on AIDS awareness and funding.15 It closes on page 23: “Again, we and our colleagues thank you for your attention at the June 26 meeting. I welcome any questions or comments you may have and am available to discuss this and any other issues at your earliest convenience.”2

Signed, not merely printed

The letter’s final page carries two handwritten signatures over printed names: “Gerald B. Lefcourt,” in cursive, over the printed “Gerald B. Lefcourt,” and “Alan Dershowitz,” in a distinct hand, over the printed “Alan Dershowitz.”2 Below both, the letter carries a courtesy-copy line: “cc: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. / Roy Black, Esq.”2 The corpus’s automated text extraction of this page drops the printed “Alan Dershowitz” altogether and emits an OCR of the signature glyph after both courtesy-copy lines, on its own line, where it reads as though it were a third courtesy-copy name; read at the image, the two signature blocks and the two-name cc list beneath them are visually distinct, and Dershowitz’s name sits over a signature, not in the cc list.2 This page reports what the image shows: two people signed this letter.

Where this sits in the record

This letter is not cited elsewhere on this wiki by its own identifier. It is, however, described on the page for Alan Dershowitz, which records that in a 2016 filing in the CVRA litigation the United States admitted, in its own words, “that, as reflected in a July 6, 2007, letter from Gerald Lefcourt and Alan Dershowitz to four members of the USAO-SDFL, Alan Dershowitz was among the defense lawyers who were representing Jeffrey Epstein and who met with the USAO-SDFL on or about June 26, 2007.”5 That page cites the filing by its own identifier; neither it nor the filing cites this letter’s identifier. That admission matches this document: its date, its two signatories, its four addressees and its reference to a June 26, 2007 meeting.12 This page treats that admission as independent confirmation that this letter reached the office and was what it purports to be, without relying on the admission for anything the letter itself does not say.

The letter falls within the same defense campaign this wiki’s other pages describe: the June 2008 submission to the Deputy Attorney General and the November and December 2007 letters described on that page, and EFTA01302111, an unsigned, undated letter in the same negotiation.1 It precedes all of them. It also precedes, by 25 days, the July 31, 2007 meeting at which the office offered to end its investigation if Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges, described on this wiki’s page on the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement.16 This page does not claim this letter caused that offer; it reports only that the letter was sent, was forwarded onward by email eleven days later from an address tagged “(USAFLS)” to a recipient the production blacks out, and predates it.

What was checked and left out

The release holds further copies of this letter. A full-text search for “quintessentially of state concern,” a phrase on page 4, returns eight pages: page 4 of this copy, and seven pages in seven other documents. Each of those seven was checked against its own text extraction and each is another copy of the same July 6, 2007 letter, carrying the same letterhead, the same running head giving the date and the printed page number, and the same paragraph. A search for the salutation “Dear Messrs. Sloman, Menchel and Lourie” returns five pages, all within that group of copies. A search for the attachment file name “Lefcourt-ltr” returns five pages: the July 17, 2007 forwarding email described above, and four pages of a June 2008 email carrying a different attachment, “Page 6 Article re Lefcourt Ltr to Acosta.pdf” — the search index treats the hyphen as a space, so “Lefcourt-ltr” and “Lefcourt Ltr” return the same five rows, and no further copy of the letter was found by that route.

Four of the seven were also read at the page image, and those four are the only further copies this page names: EFTA00176507, EFTA00191396, EFTA02756447 and EFTA00184224.317

Two of those copies are the same court exhibit and they do not agree with each other. EFTA02756447 at its page 2 and EFTA00184224 at its page 412 both carry the letter’s first page under the identical header “Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 24” and the identical production stamp “MIA_CEOS_00077.” On EFTA02756447 the addressee block and salutation print in the clear but for a box over part of one addressee’s given name; on EFTA00184224 the same block has both Miami surnames, both West Palm Beach names, that office’s street address and all four salutation names blacked out.17 The difference between them is confined to the addressee block and the letterhead. This page draws no inference from it about how any copy treats any other redaction: a copy that is less redacted in one zone of a page is not thereby less redacted elsewhere on it, and every redaction this page reports is certified at the image of the page that carries it, in the footnote for that page.

This page did not locate a written reply from the office to this specific letter; it did not search exhaustively for one beyond the searches just described, and does not claim none exists. It does not identify the redacted “Ms. [redacted]” of the footnote on page 12, or the “Video Interview” she is said to have given. It does not repeat the letter’s account of any specific individual’s age, conduct or statements to police beyond what is reported above in general terms, and it does not reproduce the letter’s characterization of who, among those who responded to what it calls a general invitation, may have been under 18.

Pages 1, 3, 4, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 23 of this copy were read from the page image, and every passage quoted above is from one of them. Pages 2, 5 through 11, 14, 15, 21 and 22 were read from the corpus text layer only, which is legible for continuous prose on this document apart from the letterhead lines on every page; this page does not quote from those pages.

Footnotes

  1. EFTA01660165, p. 1 of 23: letterhead, “148 East 78th Street, New York, New York 10021”; attorney names Gerald B. Lefcourt, Sheryl E. Reich, Renato C. Stabile, Faith A. Friedman; “BY FEDERAL EXPRESS”; date “July 6, 2007”; two redacted address blocks, the Miami pair reading “[box], Esq., First Assistant United States Attorney” and “[box], Esq., Chief, Criminal Division” (99 NE 4th Street, Miami) and the West Palm Beach pair reading “[box] Deputy Chief, Northern Region” and “[box] Assistant United States Attorney” with no “Esq.” (500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400, West Palm Beach); italicized subject line “Jeffrey Epstein”; salutation “Dear Messrs. [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted] and Ms. [redacted]:”; opening paragraph naming “our meeting on June 26, 2007”; heading “I. 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) Has No Applicability to the Facts Here.” Read from the page image at 400 and 600 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01660165 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12 ↩13 ↩14

  2. EFTA01660165, p. 23 of 23 (printed “Page 23”): closing paragraph thanking the office “for your attention at the June 26 meeting”; two handwritten signatures over the printed names “Gerald B. Lefcourt” and “Alan Dershowitz”; “cc: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. / Roy Black, Esq.” Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01660165 p.23. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  3. Two further copies of the same July 6, 2007 letter in the release which print the addressee block in the clear on the page image. EFTA00176507, p. 2 of 92 (Bates EFTA00176508): “BY FEDERAL EXPRESS / Jeffrey Sloman, Esq., First Assistant United States Attorney / Matthew Menchel, Esq., Chief, Criminal Division / The United States Attorney’s Office / Southern District of Florida / 99 NE 4th Street / Miami, Florida 33132” and “Andrew Lourie, Deputy Chief, Northern Region / A. Marie Villafaña, Assistant United States Attorney / The United States Attorney’s Office / Southern District of Florida / 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 / West Palm Beach, Florida 33401”; salutation “Dear Messrs. Sloman, Menchel and Lourie and Ms. Villafaña:”; opening sentence “We write as counsel to Jeffrey Epstein to follow-up on our meeting on June 26, 2007.” The same block, the same salutation and the same opening sentence print identically at EFTA00191396, p. 49 of 71 (Bates EFTA00191444, production stamp MIA_CEOS_00077). Both read from the page image at 400 dpi. The four addressees’ names printed on this page are supplied from these two copies and not from the copy this page describes, which blacks them out; the page carrying each name was rendered and read before the name was published. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00176507 p.2 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00191396 p.49. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  4. EFTA01660164 (Data Set 10), single page: an email, with the sender’s display name and address blacked out and the display name followed by “(USAFLS)”, and a single “To:” address blacked out with nothing outside the box, so the image does not show who received it; “Subject: Lefcourt/Dershowitz”; “Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:14:18 +0000”; “Attachments: Lefcourt-ltr.pdf.” Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01660164 p.1. ↩

  5. United States’ Response to Petitioners’ Second Request for Admissions to the Government, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), DE 354-2, filed January 14, 2016, response 6: “The Respondent admits that, as reflected in a July 6, 2007, letter from Gerald Lefcourt and Alan Dershowitz to four members of the USAO-SDFL, Alan Dershowitz was among the defense lawyers who were representing Jeffrey Epstein and who met with the USAO-SDFL on or about June 26, 2007. Except as otherwise admitted above, the Respondent denies Request No. 6.” Read from the page image at 400 dpi; also cited, from the same source, on the Alan Dershowitz page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01626136 p.4. ↩ ↩2

  6. Office of Professional Responsibility Report, filed as Government Exhibit 3, Document 204-3 in United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), April 16, 2021, narrative p. 25: “Accordingly, Villafaña drafted an 82-page prosecution memorandum directed to Acosta, Sloman, Menchel (who had replaced Sloman as the USAO’s Criminal Division Chief the previous October, when Sloman became the FAUSA), Lourie, and her immediate supervisor, dated May 1, 2007, supporting a proposed 60-count indictment…” That page of the report carries surnames only; the forenames of the officials named on it are not printed there. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. Also recorded, from the same source, on the Marie Villafaña page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02830776 p.51. ↩

  7. Same page, footnote 1: “The statute in effect during the events at issue carries a mandatory five-year period of incarceration. The current ten-year mandatory minimum was instituted in 2006.” Read from the page image at 400 and 600 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01660165 p.1. And p. 3 of 23 (printed “Page 3”): “§3299. The law was named in memory of Adam Walsh who, 25 years earlier, had been abducted from a department store and was later found murdered…” Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01660165 p.3. ↩

  8. EFTA01660165, p. 4 of 23 (printed “Page 4”): “The bulk importation of complex bodies of state law is highly problematic… Like issues of family law, these issues are quintessentially of state concern within our federal system,” and the New York hypothetical, “even if the date never happened.” Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01660165 p.4. ↩ ↩2

  9. EFTA01660165, p. 12 of 23 (printed “Page 12”), footnote 10: “Indeed, this last problem is best illustrated by any calls [redacted] may claim to have made to solicit persons to massage Mr. Epstein. Though Ms. [redacted] may have known the actual ages of the women whom she called at the time she called, and may therefore have known that one or more was in fact under 18, she was clear in speaking to detectives that she never communicated such information to Mr. Epstein. Rather, she understood Mr. Epstein wanted massages from women at least 18 years of age. (Video Interview of [redacted] on October 3, 2005).” The footnote carries three solid black boxes on the image itself — after “by any calls,” after “Though Ms.,” and after “(Video Interview of” — and this page reproduces nothing from behind any of them. The footnote’s own prose refers throughout to a single woman: “Ms. [redacted],” “the women whom she called,” “she was clear,” “she understood.” Read from the page image at 600 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01660165 p.12. ↩

  10. EFTA01660165, p. 13 of 23 (printed “Page 13”): “As we believe we persuaded you at the June 26th meeting, Mr. Epstein never targeted minors. On the contrary, what he did — at worst — was akin to putting up a sign saying to all, come in if you are interested in giving a massage for $200. A few among those who accepted the general invitation may have in fact been under 18 (though they lied about that age and said they were 18)…” No redaction appears in the body prose of this page; the continuation running head at the top of it carries the same four solid boxes over the addressee lines that appear on every continuation page of the letter. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01660165 p.13. ↩

  11. EFTA01660165, p. 16 of 23 (printed “Page 16”), Bates EFTA01660180: subsection heading “6. Conclusion” and its opening sentence, “In Mr. Epstein’s case, there was no use of the internet to induce, etc., and, given the legislative history and purpose, that is itself dispositive. Nor does the case present any of the dangers associated with internet predators and cyberspace.” This page of this copy also carries a handwritten marginal annotation: cursive script, in strokes distinct from the printed type, running diagonally down the right-hand margin from the line “See also United States v. Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 2005) (unpublished)” and past the paragraph below it, reading “Where is the citation?” The image does not show who wrote it or when, and this page draws no inference from it. Read from the page image at 400 and 600 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01660165 p.16. ↩

  12. EFTA01660165, p. 17 of 23 (printed “Page 17”), Bates EFTA01660181: concluding paragraphs of Section I on face-to-face conduct within Epstein’s home, including “If such conduct constituted a crime, it would be a classic state offense.”; heading “II. Mr. Epstein Warrants Declination to Prosecute as Exercise of Discretion.”; opening two paragraphs on the pending state case and “who Jeffrey Epstein is as a person.”; and, as the last paragraph of the page, “Jeffrey Epstein was raised in a middle class neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York, by hardworking parents.” Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01660165 p.17. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  13. EFTA01660165, p. 18 of 23 (printed “Page 18”), Bates EFTA01660182: the page opens mid-sentence at “driving a taxi cab to working as a mechanic”; the Bear Stearns career from 1976; the employee’s son’s retinal blastoma and school expenses; the start of the infertility-treatment anecdote. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01660165 p.18. ↩

  14. EFTA01660165, p. 19 of 23 (printed “Page 19”): “Mr. Epstein is now the godfather of the employee’s seven-year old twins”; the building workman’s sister-in-law’s kidney donation and visa; the Rockefeller University scholarships; and, of the Rwandan students, “On a trip to Rwanda to inspect the genocide camps, Mr. Epstein approached the President of Rwanda and offered to help identify and then to fund two worthy Rwandan students to earn undergraduate degrees in the United States. The students, whom Mr. Epstein did not meet until after their second year of studies, both are expected to graduate with honors from the City University of New York in 2008.” Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01660165 p.19. ↩

  15. EFTA01660165, p. 20 of 23 (printed “Page 20”): “monthly with a teenage building workman whose expenses of vocational school are being paid by Mr. Epstein”; meetings with “young professionals”; “more than 70 athlete wellness programs, building projects, scholarship funds and community interest programs in the United States Virgin Islands alone”; the list of philanthropic organizations; the Clinton New York Magazine quotation, “a committed philanthropist with a keen sense of global markets and an in-depth knowledge of twenty-first-century science”; the month-long Africa trip on AIDS awareness; and the opening reference to the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01660165 p.20. ↩ ↩2

  16. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, Investigation into the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida’s Resolution of Its 2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation, Executive Summary of Report, November 2020, p. i (p. 3 of 14 as filed as Exhibit D to Document 138-4 in United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, February 4, 2021): “At a July 31, 2007 meeting with Epstein’s attorneys, the USAO offered to end its investigation if Epstein pled guilty to state charges, agreed to serve a minimum of two years’ incarceration, registered as a sexual offender, and agreed to a mechanism through which victims could obtain monetary damages.” Read from the corpus text layer: the site refuses the desk’s automated image fetches for this production by design, so this page could not be image-checked. This is the same source the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement page gives for the sentence. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 ↩

  17. EFTA02756447, p. 2 of 24 (Bates EFTA02756448) and EFTA00184224, p. 412 of 982 (Bates EFTA00184635): the letter’s first page as filed, each carrying the header “Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-46 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 24” and the production stamp “MIA_CEOS_00077.” On the EFTA02756447 image the four addressee lines and the salutation print in the clear except for a box over part of one addressee’s given name; on the EFTA00184224 image the two Miami surnames, both West Palm Beach names, the West Palm Beach street address and all four salutation names are covered by solid boxes. Both read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02756447 p.2 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00184224 p.412. ↩ ↩2

Backlinks