vault backup: 2026-09-25 22:09:08
This commit is contained in:
parent
b208eb6051
commit
f3aadfd333
104 changed files with 3959 additions and 180 deletions
|
|
@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ Epstein himself had received an agreed eighteen-month state sentence under the 2
|
|||
|
||||
### The Directory at the Maxwell Trial
|
||||
|
||||
A copy of the same contact book was admitted as Government Exhibit 52 at the 2021 trial of [[Ghislaine Maxwell]] in the Southern District of New York, over defense objections, after its authentication by another former Palm Beach house manager, [[Juan Alessi]], on December 8, 2021.[^4]
|
||||
A copy of the same contact book was admitted as Government Exhibit 52 at the 2021 trial of [[Ghislaine Maxwell]] in the [[U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York|Southern District of New York]], over defense objections, after its authentication by another former Palm Beach house manager, [[Juan Alessi]], on December 8, 2021.[^4]
|
||||
|
||||
### Footnotes
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -8,11 +8,11 @@ summary: "Anthony Pasciuto was the Deputy Director of the Executive Office of U.
|
|||
|
||||
Anthony Pasciuto was the Deputy Director of the Executive Office of U.S. Trustees (EOUST) within the [[Department of Justice|DOJ]]. He became a central figure in [[INSLAW|Inslaw]]'s allegations of a plot to convert its bankruptcy to a liquidation and a subsequent cover-up.
|
||||
|
||||
Inslaw's primary allegation stemmed from a private conversation [[Bill Hamilton]] and [[Nancy Hamilton]] had with Pasciuto in March 1987. According to Nancy Hamilton's later testimony, Pasciuto told them that the Director of EOUST, [[Thomas Stanton]], had pressured the U.S. Trustee assigned to the [[INSLAW]] case, [[William White]], to convert the case to Chapter 7. Pasciuto also allegedly told the Hamiltons that Stanton had tried to detail a talented attorney from the U.S. Trustee's Office in the Southern District of New York, [[Harry Jones]], to Washington D.C., to work on converting the Inslaw case. This allegation was initially supported by the deposition testimony of [[Cornelius Blackshear]], then a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, who swore that White had told him Stanton wanted the Inslaw case converted and a particular attorney from Blackshear's office assigned to handle it.[^1]
|
||||
Inslaw's primary allegation stemmed from a private conversation [[Bill Hamilton]] and [[Nancy Hamilton]] had with Pasciuto in March 1987. According to Nancy Hamilton's later testimony, Pasciuto told them that the Director of EOUST, [[Thomas Stanton]], had pressured the U.S. Trustee assigned to the [[INSLAW]] case, [[William White]], to convert the case to Chapter 7. Pasciuto also allegedly told the Hamiltons that Stanton had tried to detail a talented attorney from the U.S. Trustee's Office in the [[U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York|Southern District of New York]], [[Harry Jones]], to Washington D.C., to work on converting the Inslaw case. This allegation was initially supported by the deposition testimony of [[Cornelius Blackshear]], then a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, who swore that White had told him Stanton wanted the Inslaw case converted and a particular attorney from Blackshear's office assigned to handle it.[^1]
|
||||
|
||||
However, Pasciuto's testimony and statements were found to be highly unreliable by the Special Counsel's investigation. Pasciuto himself testified during the Independent Handling hearing that no one had ever told him Stanton pressured White to convert the case, and he had no personal knowledge of the subject. He admitted that if he did tell the Hamiltons of such pressure, it was because he was very upset and would have done anything, including exaggerating and making things up, to hurt Stanton, his boss, with whom he was having problems. Pasciuto later changed his story, claiming that his initial statements to the Hamiltons were true and that his trial testimony was influenced by pressure from the DOJ and the lack of corroboration from Blackshear and White.[^1]
|
||||
|
||||
The Special Counsel's investigation concluded that Pasciuto's statements were unreliable because he never claimed first-hand knowledge, he contradicted his own prior sworn testimony, and his later statements were often vague impressions without corroboration. The investigation also noted that Pasciuto's later claims were made after the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) recommended his termination for admitting he made false statements to the Hamiltons to harm Stanton. OPR concluded that Pasciuto's conduct, in providing false information to harm his superior, did not qualify him as a whistleblower, and his termination was appropriate. The Special Counsel found insufficient evidence to support the allegations that the DOJ planned or attempted to convert Inslaw's bankruptcy case or engaged in any cover-up.[^1]
|
||||
The Special Counsel's investigation concluded that Pasciuto's statements were unreliable because he never claimed first-hand knowledge, he contradicted his own prior sworn testimony, and his later statements were often vague impressions without corroboration. The investigation also noted that Pasciuto's later claims were made after the [[Office of Professional Responsibility]] (OPR) recommended his termination for admitting he made false statements to the Hamiltons to harm Stanton. OPR concluded that Pasciuto's conduct, in providing false information to harm his superior, did not qualify him as a whistleblower, and his termination was appropriate. The Special Counsel found insufficient evidence to support the allegations that the DOJ planned or attempted to convert Inslaw's bankruptcy case or engaged in any cover-up.[^1]
|
||||
|
||||
### Footnotes
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ Gilberto Rodríguez Orejuela and his brother [[Miguel Rodriguez Orejuela|Miguel]
|
|||
|
||||
Rodríguez Orejuela was arrested in [[Spain]] in November 1984 and extradited from Spain to [[Colombia]] in 1986; while he was in a Spanish prison he met the lawyer William Moran, who was visiting another client, [[Jorge Luis Ochoa]], and who represented the brothers in the [[United States]] from then on. He was indicted in the mid-1980s in the Eastern District of Louisiana, and the United States asked Colombia to extradite him; in 1990 the Colombian Supreme Court declared the extradition treaty with the United States unconstitutional. He was added to the Miami case *United States v. Austin* by a superseding indictment of September 28, 1994. As of 1997 he had never appeared before an American court.[^2] According to [[Cheri Seymour]], he and [[Jose Santacruz Londono|José Santacruz Londoño]] had been targets of the [[DEA]]'s Centac 21 task force, which obtained indictments in [[Los Angeles]] and New York in 1978 that went no further; the task force was disbanded, and some DEA agents suspected a [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]] connection. She also wrote that he led a delegation to a "cocaine summit conference" in [[Panama City]] in the early 1980s, that his name was later removed from DEA reports, and that he owned the Northside Bank of Miami.[^1]
|
||||
|
||||
He and Miguel were imprisoned in Colombia in 1995 and continued to run the cartel from prison through Miguel's son, William Rodríguez Abadía, who pleaded guilty in Miami on March 8, 2006. After Colombia lifted its ban on extraditing nationals in 1997, investigations in Miami and New York produced new charges covering conduct after that date; Gilberto was extradited in December 2004 and Miguel in March 2005. On September 26, 2006, before Judge Federico A. Moreno in the Southern District of Florida, each pleaded guilty to conspiring to import five kilograms or more of cocaine, admitting responsibility for more than 200,000 kilograms smuggled between about 1990 and July 2002, and each was sentenced to thirty years. They agreed to a forfeiture judgment of 2.1 billion dollars, and 28 relatives agreed to give up their interests in the family's businesses, including the Drogas La Rebaja pharmacy chain, in exchange for eligibility to be removed from the Treasury's list of Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers; the government agreed not to prosecute six of them. The Miami case, prosecuted under U.S. Attorney [[Alexander Acosta|R. Alexander Acosta]], grew out of Operation Cornerstone, an investigation begun in August 1991 after the discovery of more than 12,000 kilograms of cocaine in a cargo of cement posts at the port of Miami.[^4] The New York money-laundering charge, transferred to Miami, brought a further 87 months, concurrent with the thirty-year term, on November 17, 2006.[^5]
|
||||
He and Miguel were imprisoned in Colombia in 1995 and continued to run the cartel from prison through Miguel's son, William Rodríguez Abadía, who pleaded guilty in Miami on March 8, 2006. After Colombia lifted its ban on extraditing nationals in 1997, investigations in Miami and New York produced new charges covering conduct after that date; Gilberto was extradited in December 2004 and Miguel in March 2005. On September 26, 2006, before Judge Federico A. Moreno in the [[U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida|Southern District of Florida]], each pleaded guilty to conspiring to import five kilograms or more of cocaine, admitting responsibility for more than 200,000 kilograms smuggled between about 1990 and July 2002, and each was sentenced to thirty years. They agreed to a forfeiture judgment of 2.1 billion dollars, and 28 relatives agreed to give up their interests in the family's businesses, including the Drogas La Rebaja pharmacy chain, in exchange for eligibility to be removed from the Treasury's list of Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers; the government agreed not to prosecute six of them. The Miami case, prosecuted under U.S. Attorney [[Alexander Acosta|R. Alexander Acosta]], grew out of Operation Cornerstone, an investigation begun in August 1991 after the discovery of more than 12,000 kilograms of cocaine in a cargo of cement posts at the port of Miami.[^4] The New York money-laundering charge, transferred to Miami, brought a further 87 months, concurrent with the thirty-year term, on November 17, 2006.[^5]
|
||||
|
||||
### The Lawyers
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
75
10 - PEOPLE/(N-S)/Henry Smock.md
Normal file
75
10 - PEOPLE/(N-S)/Henry Smock.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
category: "Law Enforcement & Legal"
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- Person
|
||||
- HenrySmock
|
||||
- VirginIslands
|
||||
- JeffreyEpstein
|
||||
- EconomicDevelopmentCommission
|
||||
- LittleStJames
|
||||
- AlbertBryan
|
||||
- TaxIncentives
|
||||
alias:
|
||||
- Henry Smock, Esq.
|
||||
- Attorney Smock
|
||||
summary: "St. Thomas lawyer and former territorial judge who helped Epstein buy Little St. James, counseled the board that granted his tax benefits, and was Governor Bryan's proposed mediator for the estate settlement."
|
||||
location: "St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands"
|
||||
relations:
|
||||
- type: represented
|
||||
with: "[[Jeffrey Epstein]]"
|
||||
role: "assisted the purchase of Little St. James"
|
||||
start: 1998
|
||||
fn: 1
|
||||
- type: contractor_to
|
||||
with: "[[Economic Development Commission]]"
|
||||
role: "legal counsel at the Southern Trust Company public hearing"
|
||||
start: 2012-11-15
|
||||
fn: 2
|
||||
- type: member_of
|
||||
with: "[[University of the Virgin Islands]]"
|
||||
role: "board of trustees"
|
||||
fn: 3
|
||||
- type: represented
|
||||
with: "[[Albert Bryan]]"
|
||||
role: "counsel in the governor's divorce; obtained an order sealing the records"
|
||||
start: 2023
|
||||
fn: 1
|
||||
created: 2026-09-25
|
||||
updated: 2026-09-25
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Henry Smock is a lawyer in [[St. Thomas]], [[U.S. Virgin Islands]], and a former judge of the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands. He assisted [[Jeffrey Epstein]] in the 1998 purchase of [[Little St. James]] and served for years as counsel to the board of the [[Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority]], which oversees the [[Economic Development Commission]] program that granted Epstein's companies their tax exemptions; in November 2012 he swore in Epstein at the public hearing on [[Southern Trust Company]]'s application. According to [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] notes of a 2023 interview with the former Attorney General [[Denise George]], Governor [[Albert Bryan]] told her to settle the territory's suit against Epstein's estate and to "select Henry Smock" as mediator. Smock later represented Bryan in his divorce.[^1][^2]
|
||||
|
||||
### Legal Career in the Territory
|
||||
|
||||
A biography of Smock, circulated in October 2011, states that he graduated from [[Rutgers University]], came to the Virgin Islands in 1970, received his law degree from the [[University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill]] and was admitted to the Virgin Islands bar in 1975, served as a judge of the Territorial Court from 1987 to 1993, was a partner of Smock & Moorehead, and was a former chairman of the territory's Law Revision Commission and a former president of the Virgin Islands Bar Association. He served on the board of trustees of the [[University of the Virgin Islands]].[^3]
|
||||
|
||||
### The Governor's Wife's List
|
||||
|
||||
On October 19, 2011 [[Cecile de Jongh]], wife of Governor [[John de Jongh]] and listed as office manager of Epstein's Virgin Islands companies,[^4] sent Epstein ("JEE") an email headed "RT Park Directors," profiling candidates for the board of the University of the Virgin Islands Research and Technology Park. She closed several entries with her own notes. Of the university's president, David Hall, she wrote, "DO NOT KNOW HIM THAT WELL AND HE IS NEW TO THE VI"; of the university board chairman, Alex Moorhead, a retired vice president for government affairs of the [[HOVENSA]] refinery, "I HAVE KNOWN HIM FOR YEARS - QUIET AND CONSERVATIVE"; and of the park's executive director, "DO NOT KNOW HIM THAT WELL." Three entries, including Smock's, ended with the word "FRIEND." The email closed: "John has two other appointments to make."[^3]
|
||||
|
||||
### Counsel to the Commission
|
||||
|
||||
The Economic Development Commission held a public hearing on Southern Trust Company's application on November 15, 2012, in the Port Authority conference room on St. Thomas, with Albert Bryan, then its chairman, presiding. The staff present were listed as including "HENRY SMOCK, ESQ., Legal Counsel." At the chair's request, the transcript records, "Erika Kellerhals, Esq. and Jeffrey Epstein were duly sworn in by Attorney Smock." [[Erika Kellerhals]] presented Epstein as "the President of Southern Trust," a company that would provide "consulting services to companies around the world" using "biomedical and financial informatics," and asked for a waiver of the employment requirement to five employees for five years. Epstein told the commission that "Places, frankly, like St. [Thomas] are the perfect place to sequence people because it's so isolated."[^2]
|
||||
|
||||
When commissioner Millin Maduro asked legal counsel how the governor's veto of pending legislation on minimum employment would affect the application, Smock answered, "So we'll be dealing with the old legislation." Bryan said, "But the law allows for us to waive the employment in any case," and Smock replied, "If we wish." When Maduro proposed noting the waiver on the record so the applicant would not need to return for a modification hearing, Smock said, "I believe it's already a part of the application."[^2] Southern Trust received a ten-year package of exemptions from February 2013.[^4]
|
||||
|
||||
After Epstein's arrest in July 2019, Smock was part of the authority's nine-step protocol for answering press inquiries about Epstein's tax benefits.[^1] In the Virgin Islands' suit against [[JPMorgan Chase]], the bank's supplemental initial disclosures of August and September 2023 listed Smock as a person with knowledge of "Economic development tax incentives received or requested by Jeffrey Epstein."[^5]
|
||||
|
||||
### The Mediator Proposal
|
||||
|
||||
The territory's suit against Epstein's estate was filed by Attorney General George in 2020. In an interview with the FBI on October 2, 2023, released by the [[Department of Justice|Justice Department]] on January 30, 2026, George said that Bryan's "original tone of 'Go for it' changed to 'End it quickly,'" and that he told her to settle with the estate for 80 million dollars "and to pursue mediation and select Henry Smock" as mediator, saying "that the Epstein estate just wanted to clear people." She said Bryan sent [[Carlton Dowe]], director of the [[Virgin Islands Port Authority]], to press her, and that Dowe told her it "would be political suicide to fire her at least before the election."[^1] The estate settled on November 30, 2022 for more than 105 million dollars, with a share of the proceeds of any sale of Little St. James.[^6] Bryan removed George at the end of December 2022, days after she filed the territory's suit against JPMorgan. Bryan has said Epstein received no special privilege from his administration.[^1][^7]
|
||||
|
||||
### The Divorce
|
||||
|
||||
Bryan filed for divorce in 2023 after 27 years of marriage. Smock represented him and obtained an order sealing the case records.[^1] Smock has not been accused of any wrongdoing, and no public statement by him on these matters has been found.
|
||||
|
||||
### Footnotes
|
||||
|
||||
[^1]: Carlson, Suzanne. "Docs confirm Bryan pressed for special treatment of sex offender." *Virgin Islands Daily News,* February 2, 2026. https://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/news/docs-confirm-bryan-pressed-for-special-treatment-of-sex-offender/article_5e9483c9-38d2-406c-8bb0-e5757ce287f2.html (reporting on FBI notes of an October 2, 2023 interview with Denise George, released January 30, 2026; Smock's role in the 1998 purchase, as EDA board counsel and in the press protocol; the Bryan divorce).
|
||||
[^2]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA02812344, Court Records, Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 1:22-cv-10904 (S.D.N.Y.), Exhibit 290, ECF No. 245-15 (filed July 25, 2023): Government of the Virgin Islands, Economic Development Commission, Public Hearing transcript, November 15, 2012, pp. 1-2, 6-9, 30-32 (VI-JPM-000016206 to 16237). https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/Court%20Records/Government%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Virgin%20Islands%20v.%20JPMorgan%20Chase%20Bank%2C%20N.A.%2C%20No.%20122-cv-10904%20(S.D.N.Y.%202022)/EFTA02812344.pdf
|
||||
[^3]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA00720076, DataSet 9, email from Cecile de Jongh to "JEE," "RT Park Directors," October 19, 2011 (duplicate EFTA02035483, DataSet 10). https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00720076.pdf
|
||||
[^4]: Suzanne Carlson, "Epstein estate could be ordered to repay more than $144 million in tax breaks," *Virgin Islands Daily News,* February 13, 2020, reproduced as Exhibit 36, ECF No. 158-36 (filed May 23, 2023), in Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR (S.D.N.Y.). http://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/news/epstein-estate-could-be-ordered-to-repay-more-than-144-million-in-tax-breaks/article_b84d9710-14af-5e69-a890-bcf8265cf8f9.html
|
||||
[^5]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA02817422, Court Records, Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 1:22-cv-10904 (S.D.N.Y.), JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s Fifth Supplemental Initial Disclosures, Exhibit 70 (filed August 25, 2023); EFTA02818510, same, Exhibit 56, ECF No. 326-56 (filed September 8, 2023). https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/Court%20Records/Government%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Virgin%20Islands%20v.%20JPMorgan%20Chase%20Bank%2C%20N.A.%2C%20No.%20122-cv-10904%20(S.D.N.Y.%202022)/EFTA02817422.pdf ; https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/Court%20Records/Government%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Virgin%20Islands%20v.%20JPMorgan%20Chase%20Bank%2C%20N.A.%2C%20No.%20122-cv-10904%20(S.D.N.Y.%202022)/EFTA02818510.pdf
|
||||
[^6]: "U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Settles Sex Trafficking Case Against Estate of Jeffrey Epstein and Co-Defendants for Over $105 Million." *Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Justice,* December 1, 2022. https://usvidoj.com/u-s-virgin-islands-attorney-general-settles-sex-trafficking-case-against-estate-of-jeffrey-epstein-and-co-defendants-for-over-105-million/
|
||||
[^7]: Carlson, Suzanne. "Bryan unapologetic for texts with Epstein, doubles down on denial of wrongdoing." *Virgin Islands Daily News,* March 3, 2026. https://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/news/bryan-unapologetic-for-texts-with-epstein-doubles-down-on-denial-of-wrongdoing/article_8bab46a1-6075-4c7c-abec-6efb19622e62.html
|
||||
66
10 - PEOPLE/(N-S)/Jed Rakoff.md
Normal file
66
10 - PEOPLE/(N-S)/Jed Rakoff.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
category: "Law Enforcement & Legal"
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- Person
|
||||
- JedRakoff
|
||||
- FederalJudge
|
||||
- SouthernDistrictOfNewYork
|
||||
- JPMorganChase
|
||||
- JeffreyEpstein
|
||||
- SEC
|
||||
- Citigroup
|
||||
alias:
|
||||
- Jed S. Rakoff
|
||||
- Jed Saul Rakoff
|
||||
- Judge Rakoff
|
||||
- Judge Jed Rakoff
|
||||
- Jed Rakoff
|
||||
summary: "Former chief of securities fraud prosecutions in Manhattan, appointed a federal judge by Bill Clinton, who rejected the SEC's Citigroup settlement in 2011 and presided over the 2023 Epstein suits against JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank."
|
||||
born: 1943
|
||||
location: "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (born)"
|
||||
relations:
|
||||
- type: appointed
|
||||
with: "[[Bill Clinton]]"
|
||||
reverse: true
|
||||
role: "U.S. District Judge, Southern District of New York"
|
||||
start: 1996-01-04
|
||||
fn: 1
|
||||
- type: employed_by
|
||||
with: "[[U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York]]"
|
||||
role: "Assistant U.S. Attorney; chief, business and securities fraud prosecutions"
|
||||
start: 1973
|
||||
end: 1980
|
||||
fn: 1
|
||||
created: 2026-09-25
|
||||
updated: 2026-09-25
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Jed S. Rakoff (born 1943, in [[Philadelphia]]) is a senior judge of the [[U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York]], nominated by [[Bill Clinton]] in 1995, who was earlier chief of business and securities fraud prosecutions in the [[U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York|Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office]]. In 2011 he refused to approve the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]]'s 285 million dollar settlement with [[Citigroup]], calling the penalty "pocket change." In 2022 and 2023 he presided over the three consolidated suits against [[JPMorgan Chase]] and [[Deutsche Bank]] arising from their banking for [[Jeffrey Epstein]], including [[Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank]], which JPMorgan settled in 2023 for 75 million dollars.[^1][^2][^3]
|
||||
|
||||
### Career
|
||||
|
||||
Rakoff graduated from [[Swarthmore College]] in 1964, received an M.Phil. from [[Balliol College]], [[University of Oxford|Oxford]], in 1966, and a J.D. from [[Harvard Law School]] in 1969. He clerked for Judge Abraham Freedman of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|Third Circuit]] from 1969 to 1970, practiced in New York from 1970 to 1972, and was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York from 1973 to 1980, the last two years as chief of business and securities fraud prosecutions. He returned to private practice from 1980 to 1995. Clinton nominated him on October 11, 1995 to the seat vacated by David N. Edelstein; he was confirmed on December 29, 1995, commissioned on January 4, 1996, and took senior status on December 31, 2010.[^1]
|
||||
|
||||
In a case brought by a [[Drug Enforcement Administration]] sting in which agents posed as representatives of the [[FARC]], Rakoff presided over the trial of the Syrian arms dealer [[Monzer Al-Kassar]], who was convicted in November 2008 of conspiring to provide material support to a designated terrorist organization and to kill Americans, and sentenced on February 24, 2009 to 30 years.[^4]
|
||||
|
||||
### SEC v. Citigroup
|
||||
|
||||
On November 28, 2011 Rakoff rejected a proposed consent judgment under which Citigroup Global Markets would pay 285 million dollars to settle the SEC's October 19, 2011 suit accusing it of "a substantial securities fraud" in connection with mortgage-backed securities (827 F. Supp. 2d 328). He held that the proposed judgment was "neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest," wrote that the SEC's "long-standing policy" of letting defendants settle without admitting the allegations was "hallowed by history, but not by reason," wrote that the proposed penalty was "pocket change to any entity as large as Citigroup," and that an application of judicial power "that does not rest on facts is worse than mindless, it is inherently dangerous." He tied the case to the related SEC v. Stoker, "currently scheduled to commence trial on July 16, 2012." The SEC and Citigroup appealed, and a [[Second Circuit]] panel decided the appeals on June 4, 2014 (752 F.3d 285); Judge [[Raymond J. Lohier Jr.]], concurring, wrote that the majority had made clear that district courts assessing a proposed consent decree "should consider principally four factors."[^2][^5]
|
||||
|
||||
### The Epstein Bank Cases
|
||||
|
||||
On December 27, 2022 the [[Government of the United States Virgin Islands]] sued JPMorgan before Rakoff; on December 29 he consolidated the case "for all pretrial purposes" with the suits of a pseudonymous victim against Deutsche Bank (22-cv-10018) and JPMorgan (22-cv-10019), under one case management plan. He decided the motions to dismiss in all three cases in a single "bottom-line" order on March 20, 2023, explained on May 1; refused on April 10 to sever the bank's third-party claims against its former executive [[Jes Staley]]; admitted [[Paul Cassell]] pro hac vice for the victims on May 2; and on August 18, 2023 denied Staley's motion to dismiss "in its entirety."[^3]
|
||||
|
||||
In June 2023 the territory's counsel, [[Motley Rice]], wrote to Rakoff that JPMorgan's late-produced internal review, "Project Jeep," confirmed "more than four pages of Epstein referrals to JPMorgan," including [[Bill Gates]] and [[Peter Mandelson]], and asked to recall chief executive [[Jamie Dimon]]. In August 2023 Rakoff ordered production of records concerning newly identified women Epstein had paid, but denied the request "to compel production of all documents and information concerning 'Project Jeep' or other investigations by JPMorgan that occurred after Epstein's 2019 arrest."[^6]
|
||||
|
||||
JPMorgan settled the victims' class for 290 million dollars in June 2023, which Rakoff approved in November, and the territory for 75 million dollars in September 2023. Rakoff closed the territory's case on October 18, 2023. On November 22 he ordered JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank to pay the [[Epstein Victims' Compensation Program]] 563,365.51 dollars and 187,788.50 dollars respectively for the cost of complying with their subpoenas. On June 28, 2024 he denied a motion by six Jane Does to intervene in the closed case for access to sealed filings, and on motions by [[The New York Times]] and [[The Wall Street Journal]] he unsealed parts of the summary judgment record on July 30, 2024 and October 24, 2025.[^3][^7]
|
||||
|
||||
### Footnotes
|
||||
|
||||
[^1]: Federal Judicial Center, "Rakoff, Jed Saul," Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/rakoff-jed-saul
|
||||
[^2]: Opinion and Order, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., No. 11 Civ. 7387 (JSR), 827 F. Supp. 2d 328 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2011) (Rakoff, J.). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8710930/us-securities-exchange-commission-v-citigroup-global-markets-inc/
|
||||
[^3]: Docket, Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), ECF Nos. 1, 5, 90, 117, 130, 131, 293, 348, 351, 366, 367, 381, CourtListener docket 66683865. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66683865/government-of-the-united-states-virgin-islands-v-jpmorgan-chase-bank-na/
|
||||
[^4]: U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York, "International Arms Trafficker Monzer Al Kassar and Associate Sentenced on Terrorism Charges," press release, February 24, 2009. https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/nys/pressreleases/February09/kassarsentencingpr.pdf ; United States v. Monzer al-Kassar and Luis Felipe Moreno Godoy, No. 07 Cr. 354 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.).
|
||||
[^5]: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Nos. 11-5227-cv(L), 11-5375-cv(con), 11-5242-cv(xap), 752 F.3d 285 (2d Cir. June 4, 2014), Lohier, J., concurring. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8441747/united-states-securities-exchange-commission-v-citigroup-global-markets/
|
||||
[^6]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA02808715, Court Records (Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 1:22-cv-10904), letter motion of Motley Rice to Judge Jed S. Rakoff seeking leave to reopen depositions, ECF No. 191, June 7, 2023, pp. 3-5. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/Court%20Records/Government%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Virgin%20Islands%20v.%20JPMorgan%20Chase%20Bank%2C%20N.A.%2C%20No.%20122-cv-10904%20(S.D.N.Y.%202022)/EFTA02808715.pdf ; U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA02814941, Court Records (same case), Order of Judge Jed S. Rakoff on Dkt. 212, August 2023. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/Court%20Records/Government%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Virgin%20Islands%20v.%20JPMorgan%20Chase%20Bank%2C%20N.A.%2C%20No.%20122-cv-10904%20(S.D.N.Y.%202022)/EFTA02814941.pdf
|
||||
[^7]: "JPMorgan Chase and Epstein survivor Jane Doe 1 reach $290 million settlement," *NPR,* June 12, 2023. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/12/1181675580/epstein-jane-doe-1-290-million-settlement-jpmorgan-chase ; "JPMorgan's $290 million settlement with Epstein accusers wins approval by U.S. judge," *CNBC / Reuters,* November 9, 2023. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/09/jpmorgans-290-million-settlement-with-epstein-accusers-wins-approval-by-us-judge.html ; "JPMorgan Chase settles Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking suit by U.S. Virgin Islands for $75 million," *CNBC,* September 26, 2023. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/26/jpmorgan-to-settle-jeffrey-epstein-suit-by-virgin-islands.html
|
||||
98
10 - PEOPLE/(N-S)/Jeffrey Sloman.md
Normal file
98
10 - PEOPLE/(N-S)/Jeffrey Sloman.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
category: "Law Enforcement & Legal"
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- Person
|
||||
- JeffreyEpstein
|
||||
- NonProsecutionAgreement
|
||||
- Prosecutor
|
||||
- DepartmentOfJustice
|
||||
- RevolvingDoor
|
||||
alias:
|
||||
- Jeffrey Sloman
|
||||
- Jeffrey H. Sloman
|
||||
- Jeff Sloman
|
||||
summary: "First Assistant U.S. Attorney in Miami during the Epstein non-prosecution agreement, who negotiated its addendum, supervised the case after Acosta's recusal, then led the office before entering white-collar defense practice."
|
||||
location: "Miami, Florida"
|
||||
relations:
|
||||
- type: employed_by
|
||||
with: "[[U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida]]"
|
||||
role: "Assistant U.S. Attorney; Chief, Criminal Division; First Assistant U.S. Attorney"
|
||||
start: 1990
|
||||
end: 2010-06
|
||||
fn: 1
|
||||
- type: head_of
|
||||
with: "[[U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida]]"
|
||||
role: "Acting, then Interim U.S. Attorney"
|
||||
start: 2009-06
|
||||
end: 2010-06
|
||||
fn: 1
|
||||
- type: investigated
|
||||
with: "[[Office of Professional Responsibility]]"
|
||||
reverse: true
|
||||
start: 2019-02-06
|
||||
end: 2020-11
|
||||
fn: 2
|
||||
- type: employed_by
|
||||
with: "[[Stumphauzer Kolaya Nadler & Sloman]]"
|
||||
role: "partner"
|
||||
fn: 4
|
||||
created: 2026-09-25
|
||||
updated: 2026-09-25
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Jeffrey H. Sloman is an American lawyer who spent twenty years as a federal prosecutor in the [[U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida]], serving as First Assistant U.S. Attorney under [[Alexander Acosta]] from October 2006 while the office negotiated the [[Epstein non-prosecution agreement]] with [[Jeffrey Epstein]]. He personally negotiated and signed the agreement's October 2007 addendum, became the senior official supervising the Epstein matter when Acosta was recused in late 2008 over employment talks with Epstein's law firm, and then led the office as Acting and Interim U.S. Attorney until June 2010. He later practiced white-collar defense in [[Miami]]. The [[Department of Justice|Justice Department]]'s [[Office of Professional Responsibility]] named him one of five subjects of its 2019 to 2020 investigation and found no professional misconduct.[^1][^2]
|
||||
|
||||
### Career in the Office
|
||||
|
||||
Sloman joined the office in 1990 as a line prosecutor. In 2001 he became deputy chief of the Narcotics and Violent Crimes Section of the [[Fort Lauderdale]] branch, in 2003 its managing Assistant U.S. Attorney, and in early 2004 chief of the office's Criminal Division, the post he held in July 2006 when the line prosecutor [[Ann Marie Villafana|A. Marie Villafaña]] briefed him and Acosta on the new Epstein case. Acosta announced his appointment as First Assistant in September 2006, and he took office in October with a suite beside Acosta's in the Miami executive offices, supervising the Civil, Criminal and Appellate Divisions. His firm biography credits him with nearly 50 criminal trials to verdict, including "the prosecution of the largest Ponzi scheme in Florida history" and "the first post-September 11, 2001 prosecution of two radical Islamic fundamentalists."[^1][^3][^4]
|
||||
|
||||
### The Investigation Opens, 2006
|
||||
|
||||
On July 24, 2006 Villafaña told Sloman that the [[Palm Beach County]] State Attorney's Office under [[Barry Krischer]] had charged and arrested Epstein, and the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] formally opened its case the same day. Sloman emailed Lourie that Operation Leap Year was "a highly sensitive case involving some [[Palm Beach, Florida|Palm Beach]] rich guy." When Acosta asked whether it was "appropriate to approach [State Attorney Krischer] and give him a heads up re where we might go?", Sloman replied, "No for fear that it will be leaked straight to Epstein." He told OPR that he did not recall what he meant, but that it was likely "we didn't trust the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office" and that there might have been "some type of relationship between somebody in the [State Attorney's Office] and the defense team." When Lourie asked in August whether Sloman and Acosta wanted Villafaña "updating you on the case," Sloman answered, "At this point, I don't really care." In early November 2006 Sloman joined, at Villafaña's request, a telephone call in which a former U.S. Attorney for the district made an overture on Epstein's behalf.[^5]
|
||||
|
||||
### The Epstein Investigation, 2007
|
||||
|
||||
OPR found that Sloman "had relatively little involvement in the decisions and negotiations that led to the NPA and did not review it before it was signed." He told OPR that he had not done a "granular review" of Villafaña's proposed charges but believed [[Matthew Menchel]] and [[Andrew Lourie]] had, and had "obviously" concluded that "the facts and the law didn't suggest that the right thing to do was to automatically indict." When Villafaña asked him on May 15, 2007 whether "pestering Alex will not do any good," he answered "Yes," and when she asked on May 21 for "a sense of the direction where we are headed," he answered "Taken care of," a remark he could not explain to OPR.[^1][^6]
|
||||
|
||||
Epstein's defense team included lawyers with personal ties to the office's managers. Sloman told OPR that he knew Lourie was friends with a former U.S. Attorney for the district who represented Epstein and with that lawyer's law partner, but that his own attitude toward former colleagues on the other side "was that we would give them process, but we didn't pull any punches with them."[^7]
|
||||
|
||||
### The Addendum
|
||||
|
||||
The agreement signed on September 24, 2007 let the government select an attorney representative for the victims' damages claims, subject to the approval of Epstein's counsel. When [[Jay Lefkowitz]] objected in early October to the representative Villafaña had proposed, she was on sick leave, and Sloman and Acosta exchanged emails about an addendum. The "Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement" was signed by Sloman for the office on October 29 and 30, 2007. Acosta wrote in a December 2007 letter that he had "sua sponte proposed the Addendum to Mr. Lefkowitz at an October meeting in Palm Beach," the breakfast of October 12; OPR recorded that "Sloman and Lefkowitz had been working on language for the Addendum before Acosta's breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz." When Lefkowitz later wrote that Acosta had promised at the breakfast not to intervene with the State Attorney's Office, contact witnesses or claimants, or intervene on Epstein's sentence, Sloman drafted a reply: "[S]uch a promise equates to the imposition of a gag order. Our Office cannot and will not agree to this." OPR found no evidence that the reply was sent.[^1][^8][^9]
|
||||
|
||||
In late November 2007 Sloman moved to notify victims under the [[Justice for All Act of 2004]]. Lefkowitz objected that victims should not be invited to the state sentencing or "encouraged to contact law enforcement officials," and Acosta ordered the letters held. On November 29, 2007 Sloman forwarded an exchange with Lourie recording that the defense "originally agreed to plead to the state felony that they thought was unregisterable (but did not tell us knowing we thought it was), but then discovered they were wrong and tried to get out of it. They tried several times to knock down the jail time after agreeing to the time."[^10][^11]
|
||||
|
||||
### Supervising the Sentence
|
||||
|
||||
On May 16, 2008, after the Justice Department's Criminal Division rejected Epstein's appeal, Sloman wrote to Villafaña, "We got approved," adding, "Alex called to tell me. He said the ltr needs to be tweaked which we'll do on Monday. I wouldn't call the FBI yet." On November 26, 2008 the office told the Department that Acosta was recused from matters involving [[Kirkland & Ellis]] because he was discussing employment with the firm, and Sloman became the senior official responsible for final decisions on Epstein. [[Roy Black]], forwarding Villafaña's breach notice about Epstein's work release to Sloman, wrote that she "is very concerned about anything Epstein does" and that the defense would "abide by" Sloman's decision.[^12][^13]
|
||||
|
||||
In March 2009 Sloman met [[Alan Dershowitz]] in Miami for what Dershowitz called "a relaxed drink and conversation." Dershowitz then thanked him for his "assurance that the feds will not interfere with how the Palm Beach sheriff administers" Epstein's sentence. Sloman replied that the office "will not interfere with how the [[Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office|Palm Beach Sheriff's Office]] administers the sentence imposed by the Court," but that "if contacted for our position concerning alternative custody or in-home detention . . . [t]o be clear, if contacted we will object." A week later Dershowitz thanked him for his "willingness to call the sheriff and advise him that your office would take no position on how he handled Epstein's sentence," adding, "[L]et's put any call off for a while." On June 9, 2009 Villafaña sent Sloman a memorandum titled "Operation Leap Year: Request to Provide Notification of Breach"; no indictment followed. In September 2009 the office told Black it would treat a transfer of Epstein's supervision to the [[U.S. Virgin Islands]] as a violation of the agreement, and three months later Sloman told Dershowitz in person that the office opposed early termination of Epstein's community control.[^10][^13]
|
||||
|
||||
### U.S. Attorney
|
||||
|
||||
When Acosta left in June 2009 to become dean of the law school at [[Florida International University]], Sloman became Acting U.S. Attorney for the district, and in January 2010 the Attorney General appointed him Interim U.S. Attorney. He left for private practice in June 2010; his firm biography gives his tenure as U.S. Attorney as May 2009 to May 2010. The whole district office was formally recused from the Epstein matter in July and August 2011.[^1][^4][^10]
|
||||
|
||||
### Private Practice
|
||||
|
||||
Sloman is a partner at the Miami litigation firm [[Stumphauzer Kolaya Nadler & Sloman]], representing individuals and companies in white-collar defense and government enforcement matters. His biography records "a $5 million 'first-of-a-kind' verdict against Philip Morris USA, Inc." and a 1.3 million dollar verdict against [[Wackenhut Corporation|G4S Secure Solutions]], and a "Most Effective Lawyer" award from the Daily Business Review.[^4]
|
||||
|
||||
### The OPR Investigation
|
||||
|
||||
OPR interviewed Sloman under oath as one of five subjects. In December 2018 Villafaña had written that Sloman once told her that Epstein's lawyer [[Lilly Ann Sanchez]] "asked Mr. Menchel to 'do her a solid'" and convince Acosta to offer two years. Sloman did not recall saying so, said that if he had he could not have meant it seriously, and told OPR: "[I]t's not something that I would have believed. Him doing her a solid. I mean that's the furthest thing from my recollection or impression even after years later." OPR found no evidence that the two-year offer was a favor. Of Villafaña, Sloman told OPR that reports that she "was soft on Epstein . . . couldn't have been further from the truth," and that she "did her best to implement the decisions that were made and to hold Epstein accountable." OPR found no professional misconduct by any subject and faulted only Acosta, for "poor judgment."[^2][^7][^14]
|
||||
|
||||
### Footnotes
|
||||
|
||||
[^1]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA02847284, Prior DOJ Disclosures, report, 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," November 2020, pp. 5 to 6, 89 to 90 and n. 139 (EFTA02847314 to EFTA02847315, EFTA02847398 to EFTA02847399). https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/Prior%20DOJ%20Disclosures/Memos.%20&%20Correspondence/EFTA02847284.pdf
|
||||
[^2]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA02847284 (see note 1), Executive Summary, pp. vi, ix to x (EFTA02847291, EFTA02847294 to EFTA02847295).
|
||||
[^3]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA02847284 (see note 1), p. 18 and n. 21 (EFTA02847327).
|
||||
[^4]: Stumphauzer Kolaya Nadler & Sloman, PLLC, "Jeffrey H. Sloman" (firm biography). https://sknlaw.com/litigators/jeffrey-h-sloman/
|
||||
[^5]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA02847284 (see note 1), pp. 21 to 22 and nn. 28 to 30 (EFTA02847330 to EFTA02847331).
|
||||
[^6]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA02847284 (see note 1), pp. 29 to 30 and n. 46 (EFTA02847338 to EFTA02847339).
|
||||
[^7]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA02847284 (see note 1), pp. 150 to 153 (EFTA02847459 to EFTA02847462).
|
||||
[^8]: Opinion and Order, *Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States*, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2019), ECF No. 435 (Marra, J.), reported at 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, quoting ECF No. 407. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.317867/gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.435.0.pdf
|
||||
[^9]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA02847284 (see note 1), p. 12, timeline of key events (EFTA02847321), and p. 90 nn. 139, 141 to 142 (EFTA02847399).
|
||||
[^10]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA00224943, DataSet 9, "Epstein Investigation Timeline," Exhibit A-1, privileged chronology of the federal investigation, May 2006 to August 2011, pp. 23 to 29, 45 to 51. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00224943.pdf
|
||||
[^11]: Opinion and Order, *Doe v. United States* (see note 5), quoting ECF No. 407 at paragraphs 79 to 90.
|
||||
[^12]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA00214486, DataSet 9, email chain, Jeff Sloman and Ann Marie Villafana, "Re: Did u hear?," May 16, 2008. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00214486.pdf
|
||||
[^13]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA02847284 (see note 1), pp. 115 to 118 and nn. 183 to 184 (EFTA02847424 to EFTA02847427).
|
||||
[^14]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA02847284 (see note 1), pp. 153 to 155, 165 (EFTA02847462 to EFTA02847464, EFTA02847474).
|
||||
|
|
@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ tags:
|
|||
- LawEnforcement
|
||||
summary: "Head of the Organized Crime Strike Force in Los Angeles who advised investigator Marvin Rudnick that he was under investigation for including MCA in his organized crime probe."
|
||||
---
|
||||
[[John Newcomer]] was the new head of the Organized Crime Strike Force in Los Angeles. He advised [[Marvin Rudnick]] that Rudnick was under investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility for including [[Music Corporation of America|MCA]] in his investigation of [[Sal Pisello]].[^1]
|
||||
[[John Newcomer]] was the new head of the Organized Crime Strike Force in Los Angeles. He advised [[Marvin Rudnick]] that Rudnick was under investigation by the [[Office of Professional Responsibility]] for including [[Music Corporation of America|MCA]] in his investigation of [[Sal Pisello]].[^1]
|
||||
|
||||
[[William Hundley]], retained by [[Music Corporation of America|MCA]], discussed the Pisello case with Newcomer and inquired about [[Music Corporation of America|MCA]]'s status in the investigation. Newcomer responded to [[Music Corporation of America|MCA]] that the allegations against Rudnick were a cause of great concern and that steps were being taken to ensure only factually accurate statements appeared in pleadings and oral arguments. He concluded by stating that neither [[Music Corporation of America|MCA]] nor its executives or employees were targets of that case and its attendant investigation.[^1]
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ Recarey was born in Queens, New York, and moved to Florida at 13. He graduated f
|
|||
|
||||
The department received the first complaint on March 15, 2005, from the family of a 14-year-old girl, who identified "Jeff" from a photo lineup. Recarey took over as lead detective in September 2005 under Chief [[Michael Reiter]]. Between March 2005 and February 2006 detectives took sworn taped statements from five victims and seventeen witnesses. Recarey's affidavit described [[Haley Robson]], then a teenager herself, bringing girls to [[358 El Brillo Way]] to give Epstein massages in exchange for money, and Epstein's assistant [[Sarah Kellen]] recording the girls' names and telephone numbers. The girls were paid 200 to 1,000 dollars per visit. According to Robson's statement, Epstein told her after her own first visit that "he would pay her if she brought over some girls" and that "the younger the better."[^1][^2]
|
||||
|
||||
To corroborate the accounts, detectives obtained trash from Epstein's residence through the supervisor of the Town of Palm Beach sanitation bureau, which corroborated the appointment scheduling; subpoenaed Kellen's cell phone records and matched her calls to victims and witnesses; and subpoenaed the arrival and departure records of Epstein's aircraft at [[Palm Beach International Airport]] from its operator. Calls to the girls clustered "in the days just prior to [Epstein's] arrival or during the time Epstein was in Palm Beach."[^2]
|
||||
To corroborate the accounts, detectives obtained trash from Epstein's residence through the supervisor of the [[Palm Beach, Florida|Town of Palm Beach]] sanitation bureau, which corroborated the appointment scheduling; subpoenaed Kellen's cell phone records and matched her calls to victims and witnesses; and subpoenaed the arrival and departure records of Epstein's aircraft at [[Palm Beach International Airport]] from its operator. Calls to the girls clustered "in the days just prior to [Epstein's] arrival or during the time Epstein was in Palm Beach."[^2]
|
||||
|
||||
The affidavit concluded that there was "sufficient probable cause to charge Jeffrey Epstein with FOUR COUNTS of Unlawful Sexual Activity with a Minor, in violation of Florida State Statute 794.05(1), a second degree felony," as to four girls, and with lewd and lascivious molestation of a 14-year-old under Florida Statute 800.04(5), also a second-degree felony. A companion affidavit sworn the same day sought charges against Kellen as a principal.[^2]
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
82
10 - PEOPLE/(N-S)/Kenneth Starr.md
Normal file
82
10 - PEOPLE/(N-S)/Kenneth Starr.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
category: "Law Enforcement & Legal"
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- Person
|
||||
- KennethStarr
|
||||
- Lawyer
|
||||
- SolicitorGeneral
|
||||
- IndependentCounsel
|
||||
- KirklandAndEllis
|
||||
- JeffreyEpstein
|
||||
- NonProsecutionAgreement
|
||||
- BaylorUniversity
|
||||
alias:
|
||||
- Ken Starr
|
||||
- Kenneth W. Starr
|
||||
- Kenneth Winston Starr
|
||||
- Kenneth Starr
|
||||
summary: "Former Solicitor General and Whitewater independent counsel who, as Kirkland & Ellis of counsel, fought the victim notification terms of Epstein's 2007 agreement and was removed as Baylor president in 2016."
|
||||
born: 1946-07-21
|
||||
died: 2022-09-13
|
||||
location: "Houston, Texas (died)"
|
||||
relations:
|
||||
- type: employed_by
|
||||
with: "[[Kirkland & Ellis]]"
|
||||
role: "partner, later of counsel"
|
||||
fn: 1
|
||||
- type: employed_by
|
||||
with: "[[Office of the Solicitor General]]"
|
||||
role: "Solicitor General of the United States"
|
||||
start: 1989
|
||||
end: 1993
|
||||
fn: 1
|
||||
- type: employed_by
|
||||
with: "[[Pepperdine University School of Law]]"
|
||||
role: "dean"
|
||||
start: 2004-04-06
|
||||
fn: 1
|
||||
- type: head_of
|
||||
with: "[[Baylor University]]"
|
||||
role: "president"
|
||||
end: 2016-05-31
|
||||
fn: 6
|
||||
created: 2026-09-25
|
||||
updated: 2026-09-25
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Kenneth W. Starr (July 21, 1946 to September 13, 2022) was an American lawyer, a former judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|D.C. Circuit]], Solicitor General of the [[United States]] from 1989 to 1993, and the [[Whitewater]] independent counsel. In 2007 and 2008, while dean of the [[Pepperdine University School of Law]] and of counsel to [[Kirkland & Ellis]], he represented [[Jeffrey Epstein]] in the negotiation and aftermath of the [[Epstein non-prosecution agreement]], writing to U.S. Attorney [[Alexander Acosta]] that notice to Epstein's victims was "wholly inappropriate" and appealing the agreement to the Deputy Attorney General. On May 26, 2016 the regents of [[Baylor University]] removed him as president after an outside review of the university's response to sexual assault reports.[^1][^2][^3]
|
||||
|
||||
### Career
|
||||
|
||||
Starr clerked in the 1970s for Judge David W. Dyer of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|Fifth Circuit]] and for Chief Justice [[Warren E. Burger]]. He served as counselor to Attorney General [[William French Smith]], as a judge of the D.C. Circuit, and as the 39th Solicitor General, from 1989 to 1993 under [[George H.W. Bush]], arguing twenty-five cases before the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]]. In private practice he was a partner at Kirkland & Ellis and at [[Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher]]. As independent counsel on the Whitewater matter he conducted the investigation of President [[Bill Clinton]]. On April 6, 2004 he was appointed dean of Pepperdine's law school.[^1]
|
||||
|
||||
### The Epstein Negotiation
|
||||
|
||||
Epstein added Starr and [[Jay Lefkowitz]] to his defense in early August 2007, immediately after the [[U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida]] presented a term sheet requiring a state guilty plea, incarceration, sex offender registration and civil damages. Starr was then dean of Pepperdine's law school and of counsel to Kirkland & Ellis. Acosta had been an associate at Kirkland a decade earlier and had worked on at least one matter each with Starr and Lefkowitz; a colleague told the Justice Department's [[Office of Professional Responsibility]] that he once entered Acosta's office as Acosta finished a telephone call and Acosta said, "[T]hat was Ken Starr." On August 6, 2007 First Assistant U.S. Attorney [[Jeffrey Sloman]] wrote to Acosta, "I didn't know Kirkland made a call into you. You were right. Unbelievable."[^2]
|
||||
|
||||
Starr presented the defense case at Acosta's first meeting with Epstein's lawyers on September 7, 2007, arguing that the matter belonged to the state. Two prosecutors recalled that he addressed himself directly to Acosta and remarked that they were "the only people in this room who have run the [gantlet] of confirmation by the Senate." Acosta did not recall the comment. The agreement was signed on September 24, 2007 by Epstein and his lawyers [[Gerald Lefcourt]] and [[Lilly Ann Sanchez]].[^2][^4]
|
||||
|
||||
On November 28, 2007 Starr asked by letter for a meeting with Assistant Attorney General [[Alice Fisher]] of the [[Criminal Division]], arguing that the office had improperly compelled Epstein to pay civil damages under 18 U.S.C. 2255 as part of a state resolution. Acosta wrote to Starr on November 30: "I am directing our prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday at 5 p.m., to provide you with time to review these options with your client." In a seven-page letter to Starr of December 4 he wrote that the prosecutors had complained of defense tactics under which, "as soon as resolution is reached on one issue, defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally." On December 5 Starr and Lefkowitz answered that "it is wholly inappropriate for your Office to send this letter under any circumstances," and that it was "certainly inappropriate to issue this letter without affording us the right to review it." No notification letters went out that month.[^2][^5]
|
||||
|
||||
On December 7, 2007 Starr and Lefkowitz sent Acosta "independent ethics opinions" by the former U.S. Attorney [[Joe D. Whitley]] and a retired federal judge, and on December 11 Starr transmitted two submissions by Lefkowitz attacking the conduct of the investigation and the line prosecutor, [[Ann Marie Villafana|A. Marie Villafaña]]. Starr's covering letter complained that the government had given "oral notification of the victim notification letter" to the lawyer of a girl whose recorded interview showed she "did not in any manner view herself as a victim." He, [[Alan Dershowitz]], Lefcourt and [[Martin Weinberg]] met Acosta in Miami on December 14, 2007, and on December 17 Starr and Lefkowitz sent Acosta a 110-page letter that invoked the State Attorney's Office's view that Epstein should not have to register as a sex offender.[^2][^4]
|
||||
|
||||
### Appeals to Main Justice
|
||||
|
||||
In March 2008 Starr told Fisher that the defense would want an audience with her if the [[Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section]] supported prosecution; he, Lefkowitz and Weinberg met the section's chief, [[Drew Oosterbaan]], on March 12, 2008, a session a deputy chief described as a "listening session" in which the defense team said "some outrageous things." Starr then accused Sloman and Villafaña of "encouraging civil litigation" against Epstein. After the section concluded on May 15, 2008 that "federal prosecution in this case would not be improper or inappropriate," Starr and Whitley wrote on May 19 to Deputy Attorney General [[Mark Filip]] asking for review "of the federal involvement in a quintessentially state matter." Their second letter, of May 27, argued that Epstein "entered the public arena only by virtue of his close personal association with former President Bill Clinton" and that the office "never would have contemplated a prosecution in this case if Mr. Epstein were just another 'John.'" It was the first defense submission to mention Clinton.[^2]
|
||||
|
||||
Filip told the Office of Professional Responsibility that he had never heard of Epstein before Starr's letter, that the argument that there was no federal basis for prosecution was "ludicrous," and that the claim of political motivation "just seemed unserious." On June 23, 2008 Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General John Roth wrote to Starr and Lefkowitz that "[e]ven if we were to substitute our judgment for that of the U.S. Attorney, we believe that federal prosecution of this case is appropriate." Starr then wrote to Acosta that they had reached "the end of a long and arduous road": "While I am obviously very unhappy at what I believe is the government's treatment of my client, a man whom I have come to deeply admire, I recognize that we have filed and argued our 'appellate motions' and lost." Acosta later wrote that Dershowitz, Starr and Lefkowitz "all sought to make peace" with him after the plea, and called it "a proud moment."[^2]
|
||||
|
||||
### Baylor University
|
||||
|
||||
Starr became president of Baylor University in [[Waco, Texas|Waco]]. In the fall of 2015 the regents engaged the law firm [[Pepper Hamilton]] to review the university's institutional response under [[Title IX]]. On May 26, 2016 the board announced that "Ken Starr will no longer serve in the role of President of Baylor University effective May 31," that head football coach [[Art Briles]] had been suspended with intent to terminate and athletic director Ian McCaw sanctioned and placed on probation. It reported findings of "a fundamental failure by Baylor to implement Title IX," that "[a]ctions by University administrators directly discouraged some complainants from reporting or participating in student conduct processes and in one instance constituted retaliation against a complainant for reporting sexual assault," and "significant concerns about the tone and culture within Baylor's football program." The board chair, Richard Willis, said: "We were horrified by the extent of these acts of sexual violence on our campus."[^6]
|
||||
|
||||
Starr also left the chancellorship in 2016. He later joined [[Donald Trump]]'s defense team for the first impeachment trial in the Senate, and died in [[Houston]] on September 13, 2022 of complications related to surgery.[^3]
|
||||
|
||||
### Footnotes
|
||||
|
||||
[^1]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Solicitor General, "Solicitor General: Kenneth W. Starr," historical biography (updated September 18, 2023). https://www.justice.gov/osg/bio/kenneth-w-starr
|
||||
[^2]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA02847284, Prior DOJ Disclosures, Office of Professional Responsibility, report, "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," November 2020, pp. 9, 59, 62-63, 94-99, 105-110, 113, 213-215. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/Prior%20DOJ%20Disclosures/Memos.%20&%20Correspondence/EFTA02847284.pdf
|
||||
[^3]: "Ken Starr, former Baylor president and Clinton investigator, dies at 76," *The Texas Tribune,* September 13, 2022. https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/13/ken-starr-dead-baylor-clinton/
|
||||
[^4]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA00224943, DataSet 9, "Epstein Investigation Timeline," Exhibit A-1, privileged chronology of the federal investigation, pp. 12 to 14, 24 to 29. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00224943.pdf ; U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA00013538, DataSet 8, letter, U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida to Jay P. Lefkowitz, December 11, 2007, p. 3 ("The agreement itself was signed by Mr. Epstein, Ms. Sanchez, and Mr. Lefcourt"). https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00013538.pdf
|
||||
[^5]: Opinion and Order, *Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States*, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2019), ECF No. 435 (Marra, J.), reported at 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, quoting ECF No. 407 at paragraphs 83, 85, 88. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.317867/gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.435.0.pdf
|
||||
[^6]: Baylor University, "Baylor University Board of Regents Announces Leadership Changes and Extensive Corrective Actions Following Findings of External Investigation," May 26, 2016. https://news.web.baylor.edu/news/story/2016/baylor-university-board-regents-announces-leadership-changes-and-extensive
|
||||
77
10 - PEOPLE/(N-S)/Lilly Ann Sanchez.md
Normal file
77
10 - PEOPLE/(N-S)/Lilly Ann Sanchez.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
category: "Law Enforcement & Legal"
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- Person
|
||||
- LillyAnnSanchez
|
||||
- Lawyer
|
||||
- FormerProsecutor
|
||||
- JeffreyEpstein
|
||||
- NonProsecutionAgreement
|
||||
- SouthernDistrictOfFlorida
|
||||
alias:
|
||||
- Lilly Sanchez
|
||||
- Lilly Ann Sanchez
|
||||
- Lily Sanchez
|
||||
summary: "Former Miami federal prosecutor who represented Jeffrey Epstein from 2006, co-signed his 2007 non-prosecution agreement, and had briefly dated the Criminal Division chief who made the office's first plea overture to her."
|
||||
location: "Miami, Florida"
|
||||
relations:
|
||||
- type: employed_by
|
||||
with: "[[U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida]]"
|
||||
role: "Assistant U.S. Attorney; Deputy Chief, Major Crimes Section"
|
||||
start: 2000
|
||||
end: 2005-09
|
||||
fn: 1
|
||||
- type: represented
|
||||
with: "[[Jeffrey Epstein]]"
|
||||
role: "defense counsel and signatory of the non-prosecution agreement"
|
||||
start: 2006-11
|
||||
end: 2008
|
||||
fn: 1
|
||||
- type: employed_by
|
||||
with: "[[The LS Law Firm]]"
|
||||
role: "principal"
|
||||
fn: 6
|
||||
created: 2026-09-25
|
||||
updated: 2026-09-25
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Lilly Ann Sanchez is a Miami defense lawyer and former Assistant U.S. Attorney in the [[U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida]], where she was a Deputy Chief of the Major Crimes Section until September 2005. From late 2006 she represented [[Jeffrey Epstein]] before her former office, and on September 24, 2007 she and [[Gerald Lefcourt]] signed the [[Epstein non-prosecution agreement]] for the defense. The office's Criminal Division chief, [[Matthew Menchel]], who had been her supervisor, told the [[Department of Justice|Justice Department]]'s [[Office of Professional Responsibility]] that they had dated briefly in 2003; he had not disclosed it to his superiors, and the office found that it "would have been prudent" for him to do so.[^1][^2][^3]
|
||||
|
||||
### Entry into the Case
|
||||
|
||||
Sanchez served in the office from 2000 to September 2005 and was a Deputy Chief of the Major Crimes Section while Menchel was its chief. In November 2006, shortly after a former U.S. Attorney had made the defense's first overture, she telephoned First Assistant U.S. Attorney [[Jeffrey Sloman]] to say that she too represented Epstein; according to Sloman's contemporaneous email, she said the defense believed the matter had been "elevated" within the office and that Epstein "wanted to be as transparent and cooperative as possible." On November 15, 2006 she wrote to the line prosecutor, [[Ann Marie Villafana|A. Marie Villafaña]], that she and Lefcourt represented Epstein and that all contact should go through them. In January 2007, when Villafaña required the documents she had requested before any meeting, Sanchez "bypassed Villafaña and phoned [Andrew] Lourie, with whom she had worked when she was an AUSA, to press for a meeting," and [[Andrew Lourie]] agreed. At the February 1, 2007 meeting she and Lefcourt presented a 25-page letter attacking federal jurisdiction and the credibility of the state's two principal victims.[^1]
|
||||
|
||||
### The Two-Year Offer
|
||||
|
||||
The office's first plea overture was made by Menchel in a conversation with Sanchez before the June 26, 2007 defense presentation, about resolving the federal case with a state plea requiring jail time and sex offender registration; according to Menchel's own email it "was a non-starter" for the defense. When Villafaña protested in early July that it was "inappropriate for you to enter into plea negotiations without consulting with me or the investigative agencies," Menchel answered that her email was "totally inappropriate" and that "Lilly called me before, not after, the June 26th meeting. It was an informal discussion and not in the nature of an official plea offer but rather a feeling out by both sides as to what it might take to resolve the matter," made "with the US Attorney's full knowledge." On July 30 he wrote to Villafaña: "While Lilly has represented in the past that this would likely not happen, I never conveyed it in quite these terms before."[^1]
|
||||
|
||||
After the office presented its term sheet at a July 31, 2007 meeting with Sanchez, Lefcourt and [[Roy Black]], Sanchez wrote to Menchel on August 2 on behalf of the defense team: "We welcomed your recognition that a state prison sentence is neither appropriate for, nor acceptable to, Mr. Epstein, as the dangers of the state prison system pose risks that are clearly untenable." She proposed two years of home confinement with no mandatory incarceration, described the proposal as "significantly punitive," and added: "We must keep in mind that Jeffrey Epstein is a 54-year-old man who has never been arrested before. He has lived an otherwise exemplary life." The office's reply of August 3, addressed "Dear Lilly" and signed by Menchel under Acosta's name, stated that "[t]he Office has never agreed that a state prison sentence is not appropriate for Mr. Epstein," that "a plea to two federal misdemeanors was never extended or meant as an offer," and that the two-year term was "a non-negotiable minimum." It was Menchel's last day in the office before he joined a private firm; he told the Office of Professional Responsibility that the timing was a "total coincidence."[^1]
|
||||
|
||||
### Registration and the Signing
|
||||
|
||||
In September 2007 [[Alexander Acosta]], [[Drew Oosterbaan]], Sloman, Villafaña and another prosecutor met [[Kenneth Starr]], [[Jay Lefkowitz]] and Sanchez. On Saturday, September 22, two days before the deadline, Sanchez sent Lourie a series of emails objecting to the requirement that Epstein plead to a registrable offense. She wrote that she had "spoke[n] to [M]att," that "we only agreed to the solicitation with minors because we believed and [State Attorney Barry Krischer] and [Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek] confirmed it was NOT registrable," and that lifetime registration was a "life sentence" imposed "simply [because] the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] wants it, in return for all there [sic] efforts." She wrote that Epstein's lawyers had "consistently emphasized their goal of 18 months in a federal camp," sent Lefcourt's number "in case you want to speak to him directly," and closed: "[I]mposing a life sentence on him is not something anyone will eventually be proud of. Please reconsider and help me get a fair result." Lourie did not reply to the emails but called Acosta.[^1][^4]
|
||||
|
||||
The agreement was signed on September 24, 2007 by Epstein, Lefcourt and Sanchez, and the two lawyers signed its addendum on October 29, 2007. The office's December 11, 2007 letter to Lefkowitz, written by the line prosecutor, listed "you, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Lewis, and a host of other highly skilled and experienced practitioners" as her counterparts and stated: "The agreement itself was signed by Mr. Epstein, Ms. Sanchez, and Mr. Lefcourt, whose experience speaks for itself."[^1][^2]
|
||||
|
||||
### Victim Notification
|
||||
|
||||
After First Assistant Sloman moved in late November 2007 to notify victims, Sanchez wrote on December 7, 2007 asking the office to "hold off on sending any victim notification letters," and none were sent that month. On December 19, 2007 Acosta wrote to her that the office would provide notice of the federal resolution but would "defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notices of the state proceedings."[^3]
|
||||
|
||||
### The Menchel Relationship
|
||||
|
||||
Menchel told the Office of Professional Responsibility that he and Sanchez had had a social relationship in the office that included, in 2003, "a handful of dates over a period of two to three weeks," after which "we mutually agreed to not do that," and that by the time he worked on the Epstein case he had married and his contact with her was limited to office events and his wedding. He said the relationship did "[n]ot at all" affect his handling of the case. Acosta, Sloman and Lourie each said they had not known of it in 2007. The office's Professional Responsibility Officer said that, "[g]iven the sensitivity of the [Epstein] matter, [my advice] would probably have been to tell him to step back and let somebody else take it over." The report concluded: "Although OPR does not conclude Menchel's prior relationship with [Sanchez] influenced the Epstein investigation, OPR assesses that it would have been prudent for Menchel to have informed his supervisors so they could make an independent assessment as to whether his continued involvement in the Epstein investigation might create the appearance of a loss of impartiality."[^1][^5]
|
||||
|
||||
Villafaña told the office that Sloman had once said of the two-year offer, "Well, I always figured that . . . Lilly asked Matt to do her a solid . . . and to get her a good deal so that she would be in Epstein's good graces." She could not later recall whether he had asserted it or merely "figured" it, and said she knew of no information "expressly [indicating] that there was any sort of exchange of . . . a favor in either direction." The office concluded that "there is no evidence supporting the suggestion that the plea was instigated by Menchel as a favor to defense counsel," noting that the defense had rejected the two-year proposal and pressed for home confinement. The office found that Epstein "retained Lilly Ann [Sanchez] a former AUSA who had been Menchel's deputy and with whom he had socialized," among attorneys chosen for their connections to the prosecutors, and that Menchel had called that tactic "ham-fisted" and "clumsy."[^1]
|
||||
|
||||
### Later Practice
|
||||
|
||||
Sanchez practices at The LS Law Firm in Miami. The Chambers guide ranks her in white-collar crime and government investigations in Florida and describes her as "a go-to for individuals facing allegations of fraud, money laundering and public corruption," drawing on "her expertise as a former federal prosecutor." No public statement by Sanchez on her role in the Epstein negotiations has been located.[^6]
|
||||
|
||||
### Footnotes
|
||||
|
||||
[^1]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA02847284, Prior DOJ Disclosures, Office of Professional Responsibility, report, "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," November 2020, pp. 9, 22-24, 41-42, 51, 54-58, 62, 82, 85, 93, 150, 153-155. The published report redacts Sanchez's surname ("Lilly Ann [redacted]"); the identification rests on its description of her as a former Deputy Chief of the Major Crimes Section who represented Epstein with Lefcourt, the "Dear Lilly" letter of August 3, 2007, the office's December 11, 2007 letter naming "Ms. Sanchez" as a signatory (note 2), and the reporting in note 6. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/Prior%20DOJ%20Disclosures/Memos.%20&%20Correspondence/EFTA02847284.pdf
|
||||
[^2]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA00013538, DataSet 8, letter, U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida to Jay P. Lefkowitz, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, "Re: Jeffrey Epstein," December 11, 2007, p. 3, signed over the block "R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney, By:" and written in the first person by the line Assistant U.S. Attorney. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00013538.pdf
|
||||
[^3]: Opinion and Order, *Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States*, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2019), ECF No. 435 (Marra, J.), reported at 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, quoting ECF No. 407 at paragraphs 79-90. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.317867/gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.435.0.pdf
|
||||
[^4]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA00224943, DataSet 9, "Epstein Investigation Timeline," Exhibit A-1, privileged chronology of the federal investigation, pp. 12 to 14. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00224943.pdf
|
||||
[^5]: "Epstein had dinners with a top Florida prosecutor on his case, docs show," Miami Herald and *Tampa Bay Times* (syndicated by Yahoo News), October 20, 2025, reporting the Office of Professional Responsibility's findings on Menchel's relationship with Sanchez. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/epstein-had-dinners-top-florida-130000826.html
|
||||
[^6]: Chambers and Partners, "Lilly Ann Sanchez, The LS Law Firm," Chambers USA 2026, Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations, Florida. https://chambers.com/lawyer/lilly-ann-sanchez-usa-5:502891
|
||||
74
10 - PEOPLE/(N-S)/Loretta Preska.md
Normal file
74
10 - PEOPLE/(N-S)/Loretta Preska.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
category: "Law Enforcement & Legal"
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- Person
|
||||
- LorettaPreska
|
||||
- FederalJudge
|
||||
- SouthernDistrictOfNewYork
|
||||
- GiuffreVMaxwell
|
||||
- Unsealing
|
||||
- JeffreyEpstein
|
||||
- Stratfor
|
||||
alias:
|
||||
- Loretta A. Preska
|
||||
- Judge Preska
|
||||
- Judge Loretta Preska
|
||||
- Loretta Preska
|
||||
summary: "Manhattan federal judge appointed by George H.W. Bush, chief judge from 2009 to 2016, who inherited the sealed Giuffre v. Maxwell record in 2019 and managed its unsealing through 2026."
|
||||
born: 1949
|
||||
location: "Albany, New York (born)"
|
||||
relations:
|
||||
- type: appointed
|
||||
with: "[[George H.W. Bush]]"
|
||||
reverse: true
|
||||
role: "U.S. District Judge, Southern District of New York"
|
||||
start: 1992-08-12
|
||||
fn: 1
|
||||
- type: head_of
|
||||
with: "[[U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York]]"
|
||||
role: "chief judge"
|
||||
start: 2009
|
||||
end: 2016
|
||||
fn: 1
|
||||
- type: member_of
|
||||
with: "[[Federal Judicial Center]]"
|
||||
role: "board member"
|
||||
start: 2008
|
||||
end: 2012
|
||||
fn: 1
|
||||
created: 2026-09-25
|
||||
updated: 2026-09-25
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Loretta A. Preska (born 1949, in [[Albany, New York]]) is a senior judge of the [[U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York]], appointed by [[George H.W. Bush]] in 1992 and chief judge of the district from 2009 to 2016. She took over [[Giuffre v. Maxwell]], [[Virginia Giuffre]]'s defamation suit against [[Ghislaine Maxwell]], after the death of Judge [[Robert W. Sweet]] in 2019, and from then until 2026 ruled on the release of its sealed discovery, including Maxwell's 2016 deposition, the January 2024 release of names from the record, and in August 2026 the government's disclosure under the [[Epstein Files Transparency Act]] of material it had taken from Giuffre's lawyers by grand jury subpoena in 2019. In 2013, as chief judge, she declined to recuse herself from the prosecution of the hacker [[Jeremy Hammond]], whose leak of [[Stratfor]] data, the defense said, had exposed her husband's email address.[^1][^2][^3]
|
||||
|
||||
### Career
|
||||
|
||||
Preska graduated from the [[College of Saint Rose|College of St. Rose]] in 1970, received her J.D. from [[Fordham University School of Law]] in 1973 and an LL.M. from the [[New York University School of Law]] in 1978, and practiced in [[New York City]] from 1973 to 1992. Bush nominated her on March 31, 1992 to the seat vacated by Robert J. Ward; she was confirmed on August 11 and commissioned on August 12, 1992. On September 9, 2008 Bush nominated her to the [[Second Circuit]]; the Senate did not vote. She sat on the board of the [[Federal Judicial Center]] from 2008 to 2012, was chief judge from 2009 to 2016, and took senior status on March 1, 2017.[^1]
|
||||
|
||||
### The Hammond Recusal
|
||||
|
||||
Hammond was prosecuted in the Southern District for the online infiltration of Strategic Forecasting, or Stratfor, "a self-described 'global intelligence' outfit." His lawyers moved for Preska's recusal because her husband, Thomas Kavaler, a lawyer at [[Cahill Gordon & Reindel]], had, the defense said, his email address disclosed in the Stratfor data. At a hearing on February 21, 2013 she denied the motion. She said the standard was "the views of the well-informed observer, not thousands of blog pages with wrong information," called a news article offered by the defense "rank hearsay," said that recusal on an interest not "arising even to the level of remote, contingent, or speculative would be a misuse," and wrote that "accepting defendant's invitation for recusal in this case would actually undercut the very policy" the defense invoked, and that "[f]inding otherwise on a record as suspect as here would only encourage supporters of this defendant."[^3]
|
||||
|
||||
### Giuffre v. Maxwell
|
||||
|
||||
After Sweet's death on March 24, 2019 and the Second Circuit's July 3, 2019 ruling in Brown v. Maxwell that the summary judgment record be unsealed and the rest reviewed document by document, the case passed to Preska. On remand she held that "only motions actually decided by Judge Sweet," with the documents relevant to his decisions, were judicial documents carrying a presumption of public access, and she set an unsealing protocol on that basis in orders of December 2019 and January 2020.[^2][^4]
|
||||
|
||||
On July 23, 2020, three weeks after Maxwell's arrest, Preska ordered the unsealing of materials including Maxwell's April 2016 deposition. A month later Maxwell's lawyer Jeffrey S. Pagliuca told Judge [[Alison Nathan]] in the criminal case that the government had already obtained nearly 90,000 pages of the civil discovery by subpoena, and that "Ms. Maxwell is seeking in both the Second Circuit and before Judge Preska that the status quo be maintained until the issue can be litigated. If, for example, without the benefit of this information, the Second Circuit and/or Judge Preska order Ms. Maxwell's deposition unsealed, the cat will be out of the bag." A panel of Judges [[José A. Cabranes]], [[Rosemary S. Pooler]] and [[Reena Raggi]] affirmed Preska's order on October 19, 2020, calling Maxwell's arguments "meritless"; [[David Boies]] argued for Giuffre.[^5][^6]
|
||||
|
||||
Preska held further hearings on the protocol in 2021 and 2022, ruled on a request by TGP Communications on August 9, 2022, and on November 18, 2022 ordered a broad unsealing in an oral ruling that two non-parties designated "John Doe 107" and "Jane Doe 171" appealed. On December 18, 2023 she issued findings after a "particularized review" (ECF No. 1315), and the release began on January 3, 2024. The same day she struck five attachments that "contain personally identifiable information, the disclosure of which could threaten the safety and privacy of named individuals"; on January 15 she stated that a woman identified in the press as "Doe 102" was not Doe 102; and in February and April 2024 she ordered sealed rather than docketed material mailed to her chambers that the court called "salacious and defamatory." On January 17, 2024 Giuffre and the [[Miami Herald]] appealed her December 2019 memorandum and her December 2023 findings.[^4]
|
||||
|
||||
On July 23, 2025, three months after Giuffre's death, a panel of Judges Cabranes, Raggi and [[Myrna Pérez]] held that "a judicial document determination is properly made by evaluating the relevant materials at the time of their filing with the court," vacated "the district court's December 2019 and January 2020 Orders in their entirety," vacated in part the November 2022 ruling, including its treatment of Giuffre's Florida deposition as carrying only a "barely cognizable" presumption of access, and remanded "for individualized review of materials." The mandate issued on January 8, 2026.[^7]
|
||||
|
||||
On January 30, 2026 the [[U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York]] moved for disclosure (ECF No. 1353). Maxwell's opposition attached the record of a grand jury subpoena and an April 9, 2019 order in In re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 19-MC-149 (CM), under which prosecutors had obtained the civil discovery from Boies Schiller Flexner months before Epstein's arrest. On August 11, 2026 Preska granted the motion (ECF No. 1367), adding to the 2016 protective order a paragraph authorizing the government to produce "documents that it received from Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, in response to a grand jury subpoena and pursuant to the April 9, 2019, order issued in In re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 19MC149 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), in accordance with the Government's obligations under the Epstein Files Transparency Act." On September 3, 2026 she substituted [[Ian Torrington Blatchford]], interim administrator of Giuffre's estate, as plaintiff, and the case continued as Blatchford v. Maxwell.[^8]
|
||||
|
||||
### Footnotes
|
||||
|
||||
[^1]: Federal Judicial Center, "Preska, Loretta A.," Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/preska-loretta
|
||||
[^2]: Brown v. Maxwell; Dershowitz v. Giuffre, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019), Nos. 18-2868, 16-3945-cv(L) (July 3, 2019). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4636340/brown-v-maxwell-dershowitz-v-giuffre/
|
||||
[^3]: Adam Klasfeld, "Judge in Hacktivist Case Refuses to Step Aside," *Courthouse News Service,* February 22, 2013. https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-in-hacktivist-case-refuses-to-step-aside/
|
||||
[^4]: Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 1:15-cv-07433 (S.D.N.Y.), ECF Nos. 1220, 1254, 1277, 1280, 1285-1343 (Dec. 2022 to Jan. 2024), 1315 (Dec. 18, 2023), 1320-1342 (Jan. 3-17, 2024), 1344-1348 (Feb.-April 2024), 1352 (Jan. 13, 2026). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/ian-torrington-blatchford-as-interim-administrator-of-virginia-giuffres/
|
||||
[^5]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA00088205, DataSet 9, letter, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C., to Hon. Alison J. Nathan, "Re: Reply in Support of Request to Modify Protective Order (Under Seal), United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)," August 24, 2020, p. 3. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00088205.pdf
|
||||
[^6]: Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413-cv, Summary Order, Doc. 140-1 (2d Cir. Oct. 19, 2020) (Cabranes, Pooler, Raggi, JJ.). https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Maxwell-ca2.pdf
|
||||
[^7]: Giuffre v. Maxwell, 146 F.4th 165 (2d Cir. 2025) (per curiam), Nos. 24-182-cv(L), 24-203-cv(con) (July 23, 2025). https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-2nd-circuit/117500106.html
|
||||
[^8]: Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 1:15-cv-07433 (S.D.N.Y.), Motion for Disclosure, ECF No. 1353 (Jan. 30, 2026); Maxwell Response, ECF No. 1360 (Feb. 20, 2026); Order, ECF No. 1367 (Aug. 11, 2026); Order amending caption, ECF No. 1370 (Sept. 3, 2026). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/ian-torrington-blatchford-as-interim-administrator-of-virginia-giuffres/
|
||||
|
|
@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ Franklin National Bank collapsed on October 8, 1974, in what was at the time the
|
|||
|
||||
### American Criminal Proceedings
|
||||
|
||||
Sindona was indicted in the United States on multiple counts related to the Franklin National failure. In March 1980, he was convicted in the Southern District of New York on 65 counts of fraud, perjury, and misappropriation of bank funds. He was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison.
|
||||
Sindona was indicted in the United States on multiple counts related to the Franklin National failure. In March 1980, he was convicted in the [[U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York|Southern District of New York]] on 65 counts of fraud, perjury, and misappropriation of bank funds. He was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison.
|
||||
|
||||
Before his American trial, Sindona faked his own kidnapping in August 1979, traveling to Sicily under an assumed identity and making contact with Mafia figures before returning to New York and claiming he had been abducted. The fiction was intended to generate sympathy and delay his trial; it failed when investigators documented his actual movements.[^2]
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
82
10 - PEOPLE/(N-S)/Robert W. Sweet.md
Normal file
82
10 - PEOPLE/(N-S)/Robert W. Sweet.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
category: "Law Enforcement & Legal"
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- Person
|
||||
- RobertWSweet
|
||||
- FederalJudge
|
||||
- SouthernDistrictOfNewYork
|
||||
- StevenHoffenberg
|
||||
- TowersFinancial
|
||||
- GiuffreVMaxwell
|
||||
- JeffreyEpstein
|
||||
alias:
|
||||
- Robert Sweet
|
||||
- Robert Workman Sweet
|
||||
- Judge Sweet
|
||||
- Judge Robert W. Sweet
|
||||
- Robert W. Sweet
|
||||
summary: "Former New York deputy mayor and Carter-appointed Manhattan federal judge who sentenced Towers Financial's Steven Hoffenberg in 1997 and presided over the sealed Giuffre v. Maxwell record until his death in 2019."
|
||||
born: 1922-10-15
|
||||
died: 2019-03-24
|
||||
location: "Ketchum, Idaho (died)"
|
||||
relations:
|
||||
- type: appointed
|
||||
with: "[[Jimmy Carter]]"
|
||||
reverse: true
|
||||
role: "U.S. District Judge, Southern District of New York"
|
||||
start: 1978-04-28
|
||||
end: 2019-03-24
|
||||
fn: 1
|
||||
- type: employed_by
|
||||
with: "[[U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York]]"
|
||||
role: "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
|
||||
start: 1953
|
||||
end: 1955
|
||||
fn: 1
|
||||
- type: employed_by
|
||||
with: "[[City of New York]]"
|
||||
role: "deputy mayor under John V. Lindsay"
|
||||
start: 1966
|
||||
end: 1969
|
||||
fn: 1
|
||||
- type: participant_in
|
||||
with: "[[United States v. Hoffenberg]]"
|
||||
role: "sentencing judge"
|
||||
start: 1995-04-20
|
||||
end: 2013-12-05
|
||||
fn: 2
|
||||
created: 2026-09-25
|
||||
updated: 2026-09-25
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Robert Workman Sweet (October 15, 1922 to March 24, 2019) was a judge of the [[U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York]] from 1978 until his death, appointed by [[Jimmy Carter]] after service as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the district and as deputy mayor of [[New York City]] under [[John Lindsay|John V. Lindsay]]. He sentenced [[Steven Hoffenberg]], chief executive of [[Towers Financial Corporation]], to twenty years in 1997, a case in which Hoffenberg later swore prosecutors had offered him a reduced sentence for information about [[Jeffrey Epstein]]. From 2015 he presided over [[Giuffre v. Maxwell]], signing the protective order under which its discovery was sealed and denying the requests of [[Alan Dershowitz]], the writer [[Mike Cernovich|Michael Cernovich]] and the [[Miami Herald]] to unseal it; the [[Second Circuit]] reversed him on July 3, 2019, three months after his death.[^1][^2][^3]
|
||||
|
||||
### Career
|
||||
|
||||
Sweet was born in [[Yonkers, New York|Yonkers]] and graduated from [[Yale University]] in 1944 and [[Yale Law School]] in 1948, after service as a lieutenant junior grade in the [[United States Navy]] from 1943 to 1946. He practiced in New York City from 1948 to 1953, 1955 to 1965 and 1970 to 1978, and was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the [[U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York|Southern District of New York]] from 1953 to 1955. He was counsel to the New York State Interdepartmental Task Force on Youth and Juvenile Delinquency in 1958, executive assistant to Mayor Lindsay in 1966 and deputy mayor from 1966 to 1969, then a consultant to the [[Association for a Better New York]] from 1970 to 1975 and a hearing officer for the New York Transit Authority from 1975 to 1977. Carter nominated him on February 17, 1978 to the seat vacated by Inzer B. Wyatt; he was confirmed on April 25 and commissioned on April 28, 1978, took senior status on March 1, 1991, and died in [[Ketchum, Idaho]] on March 24, 2019.[^1]
|
||||
|
||||
### Hoffenberg and Towers Financial
|
||||
|
||||
Hoffenberg was indicted in the Southern District of New York on April 20, 1994 for the Towers Financial Ponzi scheme, and on April 20, 1995 pleaded guilty before Sweet to conspiracy to commit securities fraud, mail fraud, conspiracy to obstruct justice and tax evasion (94 Cr. 213 (RWS), 95 Cr. 321 (RWS)). Sweet issued his sentencing opinion on March 4, 1997 and entered judgment on March 7: twenty years in prison, three years of supervised release, a one million dollar fine and restitution of 475,157,340 dollars, the figure the bankruptcy court had fixed as the valid claims of the noteholders and bondholders. Towers investors later alleged that Hoffenberg had hired Epstein "as a consultant back in 1987"; Epstein was never charged in the matter.[^2][^4][^5]
|
||||
|
||||
Hoffenberg swore in 2018 that "during the course of my criminal trial, Prosecutors offered me a reduced sentence in exchange for information about Epstein's role," and that he had refused. His lawyer [[Gary Baise]] said Sweet had asked him, "Why did he not give up Epstein?" Epstein's lawyers at [[Troutman Sanders]] wrote in 2016 that at a December 2013 conference in the criminal case "Judge Sweet stated he was unaware of Epstein." At that conference, on December 5, 2013, Hoffenberg's counsel told Sweet that "Mr. Epstein is a critical player here." A draft Troutman Sanders memorandum for Epstein and [[Financial Trust Company]], headed "Multiple SDNY Judges Warned the Person Driving This Action Against Such Frivolous Lawsuits," recounted that Sweet had found in 2003 that Hoffenberg "will be enjoined from filing any further litigation ... without prior approval."[^2][^3][^5]
|
||||
|
||||
### Giuffre v. Maxwell
|
||||
|
||||
[[Virginia Giuffre]] sued [[Ghislaine Maxwell]] for defamation before Sweet on September 21, 2015. He denied Maxwell's motion to dismiss in February 2016, and on March 17, 2016 signed the protective order (ECF No. 62) under which deposition transcripts and exhibits, including Maxwell's own deposition, were designated confidential and filed under seal. On March 22, 2017 he denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment in a heavily redacted 76-page opinion; the parties settled on May 24, 2017 on undisclosed terms. Dershowitz, whom Giuffre had accused and who denied her account, moved to intervene on August 11, 2016; Cernovich moved on January 19, 2017 to unseal the summary judgment record; and the Herald and its reporter [[Julie K. Brown]] moved on April 6, 2018 to unseal the docket. Sweet denied the requests.[^6][^7]
|
||||
|
||||
On March 11, 2019 a Second Circuit panel of Judges [[José A. Cabranes]], [[Rosemary S. Pooler]] and Christopher F. Droney ordered the parties to show cause why the summary judgment motion and Sweet's decision should not be unsealed, citing its precedent that documents submitted on summary judgment are "judicial documents to which a strong presumption of access attaches, under both the common law and the First Amendment"; a copy printed from Bloomberg Law at 5:28 p.m. that day is among Epstein's own files. Sweet died thirteen days later. On July 3, 2019, three days before Epstein's arrest in New York, the court ruled in Brown v. Maxwell that the summary judgment materials must be unsealed and the remaining filings reviewed individually, and about 2,000 pages were released on August 9, 2019, the day before Epstein's death. The case passed to Judge [[Loretta Preska]].[^6][^8]
|
||||
|
||||
In August 2020, after the government had obtained by subpoena nearly 90,000 pages of the Giuffre v. Maxwell discovery for Maxwell's criminal prosecution, her lawyer Jeffrey S. Pagliuca invoked Sweet in a reply brief to Judge [[Alison Nathan]]: "Judge Sweet, the same judge who approved the civil protective order upon which Ms. Maxwell relied, held that the defendant's 'continuing need for the confidentiality stipulation's protection outweighs by far the government's need for the deposition transcript,'" citing United States v. Oshatz (1988).[^9]
|
||||
|
||||
### Footnotes
|
||||
|
||||
[^1]: Federal Judicial Center, "Sweet, Robert Workman," Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/sweet-robert-workman
|
||||
[^2]: Marvin Gerber and Kalma Koenig v. The Financial Trust Company, XYZ Corp., ABC, Inc., and Jeffrey E. Epstein, No. 1:18-cv-07580-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), Complaint, ECF No. 7 (filed August 21, 2018), paragraphs 15 to 58 (citing United States v. Hoffenberg, 94 Cr. 213 (RWS), 95 Cr. 321 (RWS), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2394 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 1997)), with Exhibit B, Affidavit of Steven J. Hoffenberg sworn August 17, 2018, ECF No. 7-2. https://truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Gerber-v-The-Financial-Trust-Co-complaint.pdf ; Transcript of conference, United States v. Steven Hoffenberg, 94 Cr. 213 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y.), December 5, 2013, filed as Exhibit L, ECF No. 16-12, in No. 1:18-cv-07580-JPO. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.499593/gov.uscourts.nysd.499593.16.12.pdf
|
||||
[^3]: Brian Pascus, "Jeffrey Epstein worked at Towers Financial with Steven Hoffenberg, who committed Ponzi scheme crimes," *CBS News,* August 13, 2019. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-worked-at-towers-financial-with-stephen-hoffenberg-who-committed-ponzi-scheme-crimes/ ; Letter of Bennet J. Moskowitz, Troutman Sanders LLP, to Hon. Richard J. Sullivan, June 28, 2016, Hoffenberg v. Epstein, No. 1:16-cv-03989-RJS (S.D.N.Y.), filed as Exhibit G, ECF No. 16-7, in No. 1:18-cv-07580-JPO. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.499593/gov.uscourts.nysd.499593.16.7.pdf
|
||||
[^4]: Associated Press, "Jeffrey Epstein's mentor, who once ran a Ponzi scheme, was found dead. He was 77," *NPR,* August 26, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/08/26/1119746511/jeffrey-epstein-mentor-steven-hoffenberg-dead
|
||||
[^5]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA00802452, DataSet 9, draft memorandum of law, Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss, Gerber v. The Financial Trust Company, No. 1:18-cv-07580-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), Troutman Sanders LLP, September 2018. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00802452.pdf
|
||||
[^6]: Brown v. Maxwell; Dershowitz v. Giuffre, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019), Nos. 18-2868, 16-3945-cv(L) (July 3, 2019). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4636340/brown-v-maxwell-dershowitz-v-giuffre/
|
||||
[^7]: Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 1:15-cv-07433 (S.D.N.Y.), Complaint, ECF No. 1 (Sept. 21, 2015); Opinion denying motion to dismiss, ECF No. 37 (Feb. 2016); Protective Order, ECF No. 62 (March 17, 2016). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/ian-torrington-blatchford-as-interim-administrator-of-virginia-giuffres/
|
||||
[^8]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA00802958, DataSet 9, Bloomberg Law printout of Order to Show Cause, Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 18-2868 (2d Cir. March 11, 2019) (Cabranes, Pooler, Droney, JJ.), printed March 11, 2019. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00802958.pdf
|
||||
[^9]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA00088205, DataSet 9, letter, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Hon. Alison J. Nathan, "Re: Reply in Support of Request to Modify Protective Order (Under Seal), United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)," August 24, 2020, pp. 2-3, quoting United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696, 703 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00088205.pdf
|
||||
|
|
@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ Thomas Stanton was the Director of the Executive Office of U.S. Trustees (EOUST)
|
|||
|
||||
According to [[Anthony Pasciuto]], then Deputy Director of EOUST, Stanton had pressured [[William White]], the U.S. Trustee assigned to the Inslaw case, to convert Inslaw's Chapter 11 reorganization to a Chapter 7 liquidation. Pasciuto also alleged that Stanton tried to detail [[Harry Jones]], an attorney from the U.S. Trustee's Office, to Washington D.C. to work on converting the Inslaw case. [[Cornelius Blackshear]], then a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, initially testified that White had told him of Stanton's pressure. Bankruptcy Judge Bason, in his findings, concluded that Stanton struck a bargain with [[C. Madison Brewer]] to liquidate [[INSLAW]] to rid the DOJ of its contract problems, and that Stanton made this commitment to curry favor with the EOUSA and higher DOJ officials to secure support for making the temporary U.S. Trustee program permanent. Bason believed Stanton agreed to pressure White and, when White resisted, sought to detail Jones to accomplish the conversion. However, the Special Counsel's investigation found that Stanton and Brewer denied any such discussions, and that Stanton testified he only briefly considered transferring Jones to assist with the Inslaw matter due to its high-profile nature, not to effect a conversion.[^1]
|
||||
|
||||
The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated allegations against Stanton and others, concluding that Bankruptcy Judge Bason's findings on the Independent Handling proceeding were "clearly erroneous" and that there was no evidence that DOJ employees had tried to pressure White to convert Inslaw's case. OPR also found no evidence that DOJ officials had lied to cover up a conversion effort. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) also investigated the matter, finding "no proof that an effort to convert Inslaw's bankruptcy proceedings was conducted by individuals beyond those the Bankruptcy Court had found responsible." The PSI noted that Stanton urged special treatment for the Inslaw case because he saw it as a means of favorably impressing the DOJ and ensuring continued support for his office, which, while improper, did not equate to the conspiracy alleged by the Hamiltons. The Special Counsel's investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the DOJ and Stanton endeavored to have the Inslaw case converted or engaged in any cover-up. It noted that a scheme to convert Inslaw would have been self-defeating, as only the Bankruptcy Court could order conversion, and the facts of the Inslaw case would not have supported such a motion.[^1]
|
||||
The [[Office of Professional Responsibility]] (OPR) investigated allegations against Stanton and others, concluding that Bankruptcy Judge Bason's findings on the Independent Handling proceeding were "clearly erroneous" and that there was no evidence that DOJ employees had tried to pressure White to convert Inslaw's case. OPR also found no evidence that DOJ officials had lied to cover up a conversion effort. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) also investigated the matter, finding "no proof that an effort to convert Inslaw's bankruptcy proceedings was conducted by individuals beyond those the Bankruptcy Court had found responsible." The PSI noted that Stanton urged special treatment for the Inslaw case because he saw it as a means of favorably impressing the DOJ and ensuring continued support for his office, which, while improper, did not equate to the conspiracy alleged by the Hamiltons. The Special Counsel's investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the DOJ and Stanton endeavored to have the Inslaw case converted or engaged in any cover-up. It noted that a scheme to convert Inslaw would have been self-defeating, as only the Bankruptcy Court could order conversion, and the facts of the Inslaw case would not have supported such a motion.[^1]
|
||||
|
||||
### Footnotes
|
||||
[^1]: U.S. Department of Justice. *Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of Inslaw, Inc.* March 1993.
|
||||
|
|
@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ At about 6:30 a.m. Thomas opened Epstein's cell and found him hanged. Noel said
|
|||
|
||||
### Prosecution
|
||||
|
||||
On November 19, 2019 a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York indicted Noel and Thomas on one count each of conspiracy and multiple counts each of making false records, in a case announced by U.S. Attorney [[Geoffrey Berman]]; according to the indictment, Thomas told a supervisor after finding Epstein, "we messed up." Each was released on a 100,000 dollar bond and ordered to surrender their passports. On May 25, 2021 both entered deferred prosecution agreements admitting that they had falsely certified counts and rounds, and agreeing to cooperate with the [[Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General|Inspector General]], the FBI, and prosecutors and to perform 100 hours of community service; on December 13, 2021 the court entered a nolle prosequi order dismissing the charges. The U.S. Attorney's Office declined to prosecute other Special Housing Unit employees who had also falsified count slips and round sheets on August 9 and 10. Both officers were fired.[^2][^3][^7]
|
||||
On November 19, 2019 a federal grand jury in the [[U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York|Southern District of New York]] indicted Noel and Thomas on one count each of conspiracy and multiple counts each of making false records, in a case announced by U.S. Attorney [[Geoffrey Berman]]; according to the indictment, Thomas told a supervisor after finding Epstein, "we messed up." Each was released on a 100,000 dollar bond and ordered to surrender their passports. On May 25, 2021 both entered deferred prosecution agreements admitting that they had falsely certified counts and rounds, and agreeing to cooperate with the [[Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General|Inspector General]], the FBI, and prosecutors and to perform 100 hours of community service; on December 13, 2021 the court entered a nolle prosequi order dismissing the charges. The U.S. Attorney's Office declined to prosecute other Special Housing Unit employees who had also falsified count slips and round sheets on August 9 and 10. Both officers were fired.[^2][^3][^7]
|
||||
|
||||
### The Deposits and the 2026 Inquiry
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue