Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00208419DOJ Data Set 9Other

EFTA00208419

EFTA00208419 01:50 PM Subject: From: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine Please confirm receipt. 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.6 who was in charge of the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has a remarkably record as a prosecutor. I also know that an AUSA does not have the authority to grant a potential defendant a non -prosecution agreement without the permission of higher ups in the Justice Department. Not quite three years ago, the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, granted Jeffrey Epstein a non- prosecution agreement in return for his accepting a FL State plea deal for his

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00208419
Pages
4
Persons
6
Integrity

Summary

EFTA00208419 01:50 PM Subject: From: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine Please confirm receipt. 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.6 who was in charge of the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has a remarkably record as a prosecutor. I also know that an AUSA does not have the authority to grant a potential defendant a non -prosecution agreement without the permission of higher ups in the Justice Department. Not quite three years ago, the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, granted Jeffrey Epstein a non- prosecution agreement in return for his accepting a FL State plea deal for his

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
EFTA00208419 01:50 PM Subject: From: John Connolly Vanity Fair magazine Please confirm receipt. 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.6 who was in charge of the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has a remarkably record as a prosecutor. I also know that an AUSA does not have the authority to grant a potential defendant a non -prosecution agreement without the permission of higher ups in the Justice Department. Not quite three years ago, the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, granted Jeffrey Epstein a non- prosecution agreement in return for his accepting a FL State plea deal for his illegal acts regarding sex with minor females. The state case was handled by the West Palm Beach State Prosecutor who has since left office. Was your office aware of the extraordinary sweet deal that Mr. Epstein was granted by that state prosecutor? YES. BUT FOR OUR INSISTENCE, THE SAO WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO DO PRETRIAL DIVERSION WITH EPSTEIN ON A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE OF SOLICITATION OF ADULT PROSTITUTION. Was your office at the time of the agreement aware that Mr. Epstein would not be sent to a state prison facility as almost all defendants who are sentenced to more that a year in prison are required to do? DURING A MEETING ATTENDED BY ANDY LOURIE, ROLANDO GARCIA, STATE ATTORNEY BARRY KRISCHER, ASA LANNA BELOLAVEK AND MYSELF, IT WAS AGREED THAT JE WOULD STAY IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AT THE PALM BEACH COUNTY JAIL. Was your office aware that Mr. Epstein would serve his sentence in the local WPB jail? AT THE PALM BEACH COUNTY JAIL, NOT AT THE STOCKADE. Was your office aware that Mr. Epstein would be allowed, what most FL law enforcement officials describe as "beyond a sweetheart deal", in that six days a week at 7:00 AM Mr. Epstein would leave the the WPB jail with a corrections officer he was personally paying for, and be escorted to the office of attorney Jack Goldberger where he would be allowed to stay until 11:00 PM and then be returned to jail for the evening? Ostensibly this was so that Mr. Epstein could work on a new charity he had formed. This despite the fact that just prior to beginning his EFTA00208420 jail sentence, Mr. Epstein liquidated his charity and gave $18 million to a charity run by the wife of his former patron. Does the US Attorney believe that Mr. Epstein was working on a charity? AS MENTIONED DURING OUR PHONE CALL, DURING THE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS, WORK RELEASE WAS NEVER CONTEMPLATED AND IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE NON PROSECUTION AGREEMENT. AFTER THE "APPEAL" TO MAIN JUSTICE, WHEN IT CAME BACK DOWN TO OUR OFFICE, JEFF SLOMAN, KAREN, AND I TOOK A MUCH HARDER LINE, AND BOB SENIOR ALSO BECAME INVOLVED, AND HE ALSO TOOK A MUCH HARDER LINE. THE FBI AND I HEARD THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE THAT JE WAS SNIFFING AROUND ABOUT WORK RELEASE, SO KAREN AND I HAD A SPECIFIC SERIES OF CONVERSATIONS WITH ROY BLACK AND JACK GOLDBERGER ABOUT JE SERVING HIS TIME INCARCERATED 24 HOURS PER DAY. PURSUANT TO THE NPA, OUR OFFICE WAS ENTITLED TO REVIEW THE STATE PLEA AGREEMENT BEFORE IT WAS SIGNED. THE STATE PLEA AGREEMENT DID NOT CONFORM TO THE NPA AND WE OBJECTED BECAUSE IT DID NOT REQUIRE INCARCERATION. EVEN AFTER ALL OF THAT, JE APPLIED FOR AND WAS APPROVED FOR WORK RELEASE. WE SENT A NOTICE OF BREACH LETTER, AND THAT WAS WHEN I RECEIVED THE CALL FROM JAY LEFKOWITZ SAYING THAT JAY AND ALAN DERSHOWITZ HAD GOTTEN APPROVAL FROM ALEX FOR JE TO GO OUT ON WORK RELEASE. AS FOR WHETHER JE WAS REALLY WORKING ON A CHARITY, SEE MY EARLIER LETTER. Was Mr. Epstein doing work as a Confidential Informer for the federal government as he has in the past? Mr. Eptein was Victim # 1 in the federal indictment of two Bear Stears executives on fraud charges stemming from a mortgage backed fund that went under. Mr. Epstein lost almost $70 million in that fund. Was Mr. Epstein working on the government case while working on "His Charity"? WE BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THIS IS URBAN MYTH. THE FBI AND I LOOKED INTO THIS AND DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY OF IT IS TRUE. Has your office ever agreed to any allow any other prisoner the same or similar sweet deal? NO AUSA I HAVE EVER TALKED TO HAS HEARD OF ONE. Was your office aware that in return for Mr. Goldberger's help, Mr. Epstein purchased for him a top of the line black BMW? (Sadly for Goldberger he was in an accident and totaled the vehicle three weeks later.) THIS WAS REPORTED IN THE PALM BEACH POST AND I HAVE SEEN HIM DRIVING THE CAR. (EPSTEIN BOUGHT HIM A REPLACEMENT AFTER HE TOTALED THE FIRST ONE.) It has come to my attention that the R. Alexander Acos to former Attorney General for the Southern District of Florida during the investigation and non-prosecution agreement with Mt Epstein had been a law partner and friend of two Mt Epstein's lawyers. Both Ken Star and Jay Lefkowitz had been partners with Mr. Acosta at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis prior to his being appointed by President Bush. I have been told by sources that Mt Acosta was the person responsible for the decision not to prosecute Mr. Epstein. I have also been told that during Mr. Starr's trip to FL to speak with federal prosecutors he complained to Mr. Acosta that the press coverage of his trips to FL on Mt Epstein's private jets were being leaked by FBI agents. ( I can assure you that was not true.) Did Mr. Acosta recuse himself from any discussions about the Epstein case so as to avoid even the appearance of impropriety? Was the possibility of his removing himself from the case ever discussed by officials in the Justice Department? Are there any memos regarding that? Is there currently an Office of Professional Responsibility investigation into the facts surrounding the handling of this case and Mr. Acosta actions in it? EFTA00208421 EPSTEIN'S M.O. WAS TO HIRE ATTORNEYS WHO COULD GET HIM ACCESS. FOR THE SAO, THE FIRST ASA WAS MAKING REAL HEADWAY, SO HE FIRED HIS FIRST ATTORNEY (GUY FRONSTIN) AND REPLACED HIM WITH JACK GOLDBERGER, WHO IS PARTNERS WITH THE FIRST ASA'S HUSBAND, AND IS GOOD FRIENDS WITH THE THEN STATE ATTORNEY, BARRY KRISHER. THAT ENDED THE SAO CASE. WHEN THE CASE CAME TO OUR OFFICE, HE HIRED GUY LEWIS, THE USA WHO HIRED ME. GUY STARTED CALLING ME INCESSENTLY (5 OR MORE TIMES A DAY). WHEN I WOULDN'T RETURN HIS CALLS AND REFUSED TO MEET WITH HIM, JE HIRED LILLY ANN, WHO ALSO TRIED ME. WHEN I REFUSED TO MEET HER, SHE IMMEDIATELY CALLED ANDY LOURIE, WHO GRANTED MEETINGS. WHEN IT WENT ABOVE ANDY AND MATT'S LEVEL, JE HIRED LEFKOWITZ AND STARR, WHO HAD CONNECTIONS TO ACOSTA. WHEN THE CASE WENT TO CEOS, JE HIRED A FORMER CEOS ATTORNEY. Thanks so much for your help, John Connolly EFTA00208422

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION TIMELINE

EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION TIMELINE Date To From Re: Exhibit # 5/1/2006 State Attorney Barry E. ICrischer Michael S. Reiter, Chief of Police for Town of Palm Beach Letter urging State Attorney to proceed with probable cause affidavits and case filing packages or to recuse himself 5/23/2006 File Opening Documents for Operation Leap Year 7/24/2006 Michael S. Reiter, Chief of Police for Town of Palm Beach Letter noting that Palm Beach Police Chief was unhappy with State Attorney's handling of case and was referring matter to the FBI for investigation 7/26/2006 South Florida Sun-Sentinel Article Regarding Chief Reiter's referral of case to FBI 8/2/2006 Subpoena to Colonial Bank (return date 8/18/06) 8/2/2006 Subpoena to Washington Mutual (return date 8/18/06) 8/2/2006 Subpoena to Capital One (return date 8/18/06) 8/2/2006 Subpoena to Chase (return date 8/18/06) 8/2/2006 Subpoena to Hyperion Air, Inc. (return date 8/18/06) 8/2/2006 Subpoena to JEGE, Inc. (

51p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

NY Post seeks to unseal sealed appellate briefs in Jeffrey Epstein appeal, exposing DA and prosecutor conduct

The filing reveals a concrete dispute over sealed court documents that could shed light on why the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and Florida prosecutors allegedly gave Jeffrey Epstein preferent NY Post filed a motion (Dec 21, 2018) to unseal appellate briefs in Epstein’s SORA appeal, requestin Manhattan DA’s office (Danny Frost, Karen Friedman‑Agnifilo) initially opposed unsealing, citing C

55p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08•cv-80736•KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2013 Page 1 of 3

Case 9:08•cv-80736•KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2013 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE NI and JANE DOE #2, petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, respondent. FILED by D.C. JUN 1 8 2013 STEVEN M LARIMORE CLERK U S DIST. CT S 0 of FLA - W PB OMNIBUS ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the court on various motions. Upon consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: I. The petitioners' protective motion seeking recognition of the availability of various remedies attaching to the CVRA violations alleged in this proceeding [DE 128] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renew the request for any particular form of relief or remedy in connection with the court's fmal disposition of petitioners' CVRA petition on the merits. 2. The intervenors' motion to strike the petitioners' supplemental authority regarding privilege claims [DE 177] is DENIED AS MOOT. 3. The petitioners' sealed motion for the co

51p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs I UNITED STATES, Defendants JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR PENDING ACTION CONCERN THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to produce the original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to the Court's Order (DE #99) directing discovery in this case. BACKGROUND As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48

13p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

isiMoi keels to Starr

isiMoi keels to Starr EFTA00176157 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida R ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Kenneth W. Starr, Esq Kirkland & Ellis LLP 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Starr: 99 N.E. 4Srne1 Miami. FL 33132 (303)961-9100. Telephone (303) 530.6444 Facsimile I write in response to your November 28'h letter, in which you raise concerns regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement between this Office and your client, Mr. Epstein. I take these concerns seriously. As your letter focused on the Section 2255 portion of the Agreement, my response will focus primarily on that issue as well. I do wish to make some more general observations, however. Section 2255 provides that "[ajny person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of [enumerated sections of Title 18) and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation . . . may sue in

21p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs I UNITED STATES, Defendants JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR PENDING ACTION CONCERN THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to produce the original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to the Court's Order (DE #99) directing discovery in this case. BACKGROUND As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48

13p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.