HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012139.jpg
2.57 MB
Extraction Summary
6
People
6
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal correspondence / letter (page 4)
File Size:
2.57 MB
Summary
A letter from Kirkland & Ellis LLP to John Roth, Esq. dated June 19, 2008, arguing that the USAO is withholding exculpatory Brady evidence regarding witness interviews. The defense alleges the federal prosecution is politically motivated due to Epstein's ties to Bill Clinton and accuses prosecutors AUSA Villafana and FAUSA Sloman of specific ethical misconduct and conflicts of interest.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| John Roth, Esq. | Recipient |
Addressee of the letter, presumably at the Department of Justice.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Target of investigation |
Subject of the federal investigation and legal representation by Kirkland & Ellis.
|
| Bill Clinton | Former President |
Cited as a reason for the federal interest in the case due to his personal relationship with Epstein.
|
| AUSA Villafana | Assistant U.S. Attorney |
Accused of prosecutorial misconduct and attempting to enrich friends.
|
| FAUSA Sloman | First Assistant U.S. Attorney |
Accused of appearance of impropriety regarding a former law partner suing Epstein.
|
| Mr. Sloman's former law partner | Attorney |
Currently pursuing lawsuits against Epstein.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Kirkland & Ellis LLP |
Law firm representing Jeffrey Epstein (Author of the letter).
|
|
| USAO |
United States Attorney's Office, accused of misconduct and withholding evidence.
|
|
| FBI |
Mentioned in context of 'FBI 302s' (interview reports).
|
|
| New York Magazine |
Cited as publishing stories about Epstein and Clinton.
|
|
| Vanity Fair |
Cited as publishing stories about Epstein and Clinton.
|
|
| New York Times |
Recipient of alleged leaks from the USAO.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Approx. early 2000s (referenced as 'a few years ago')
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Destination of a week-long trip taken by Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein.
|
Relationships (3)
Travelled together to Africa on Epstein's plane; described as having a 'personal relationship' in press.
Attempted to appoint a close personal friend of her live-in boyfriend as attorney-representative.
Former partner is suing Epstein, creating appearance of impropriety.
Key Quotes (5)
"It thus is especially troubling that the USAO has not provided us with the transcript of Ms. [REDACTED] federal interview, nor the substance of the interviews with Ms. [REDACTED] or Ms. [REDACTED]"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012139.jpg
Quote #1
"I simply do not believe federal prosecutors would have been involved at all in this matter if not for Mr. Epstein’s personal wealth and publicly-reported ties to former President Bill Clinton."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012139.jpg
Quote #2
"Mr. Epstein, in fact, only came to the public’s attention a few years ago when he and the former President traveled for a week to Africa (using Mr. Epstein’s airplane)"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012139.jpg
Quote #3
"AUSA Villafana attempted to enrich friends and close acquaintances by bringing them business in connection with this matter."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012139.jpg
Quote #4
"Mr. Sloman’s former law partner is currently pursuing a handful of $50-million lawsuits against Mr. Epstein by some of the masseuses."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012139.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,345 characters)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
John Roth, Esq.
June 19, 2008
Page 4
John Roth, Esq.
June 19, 2008
Page 4
It thus is especially troubling that the USAO has not provided us with the transcript of Ms. [REDACTED] federal interview, nor the substance of the interviews with Ms. [REDACTED] or Ms. [REDACTED] nor any information generated by interviews with any of the approximately 40 alleged witnesses that the prosecution claims it has identified. Because the information provided by these women goes directly to the question of Mr. Epstein’s guilt or innocence, it is classic Brady information. We understand that the U.S. Attorney might not want to disclose impeachment information about their witnesses prior to a charge or during plea negotiations. But we firmly believe that when the Government possesses information that goes directly to a target’s factual guilt or innocence, the target should be informed about such heartland exculpatory evidence.
Most importantly, aside from whether the Department believes Brady obligates disclosure to a target of a federal investigation prior to the target’s formal accusation, no such limit should apply to a Department review. Accordingly, we request that you go beneath the face of any summary provided to you by the USAO and instead review the actual witness transcripts and FBI 302s, which are essential for you to be able to make a truly independent assessment of the strength and wisdom of any federal prosecution.
After careful consideration of the record, and as much as it pains me to say this, I simply do not believe federal prosecutors would have been involved at all in this matter if not for Mr. Epstein’s personal wealth and publicly-reported ties to former President Bill Clinton. A simple Internet search on Mr. Epstein reveals myriad articles and news stories about the former President’s personal relationship with Mr. Epstein, including multi-page stories in New York Magazine and Vanity Fair. Mr. Epstein, in fact, only came to the public’s attention a few years ago when he and the former President traveled for a week to Africa (using Mr. Epstein’s airplane)—a trip that received a great deal of press coverage. I cannot imagine that the USAO ever would have contemplated a prosecution in this case if Mr. Epstein lacked this type of notoriety.
That belief has been reinforced by the significant prosecutorial impropriety and misconduct throughout the course of this matter. While we describe the majority of these irregularities in another submission, two instances are particularly troubling. First, the USAO authorized the public disclosure of specific details of the open investigation to the New York Times—including descriptions of the prosecution’s theory of the case and specific terms of a plea negotiation between the parties. Second, AUSA Villafana attempted to enrich friends and close acquaintances by bringing them business in connection with this matter. Specifically, she attempted to appoint a close personal friend of her live-in boyfriend to serve as an attorney-representative for the women involved in this case.
It also bears mentioning that actions taken by FAUSA Sloman present an appearance of impropriety that gives us cause for concern. Mr. Sloman’s former law partner is currently pursuing a handful of $50-million lawsuits against Mr. Epstein by some of the masseuses.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012139
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document