Lilly Ann Sanchez

UpdatedOctober 7, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

Field	Documented information
Public identity	Lilly Ann Sanchez, Florida criminal defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor
Relevant former position	Deputy Chief of the Major Crimes Section in the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami
Firm during the negotiations	Fowler White Burnett P.A.
Epstein role	Defense counsel during the federal investigation, the 2007 agreement negotiations and later civil litigation
Representation letter	November 15, 2006, identifying Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt as the lawyers handling communications with federal prosecutors
NPA signature	September 24, 2007
Addendum signature	October 29, 2007
Principal documented advocacy	Challenges to a federal prosecution, opposition to incarceration and sex offender registration, disputes over victims’ civil claims and requests to delay victim notification
Relevant OPR finding	OPR considered disclosure of her prior relationship with Matthew Menchel prudent, but found no evidence that he instigated the plea as a favor to her
Evidentiary limit	Legal representation, correspondence and agreement signatures do not establish participation in Epstein’s sexual abuse or trafficking
Last checked	October 7, 2026

Lilly Ann Sanchez’s signed agreement counterpart establishes her formal role in the 2007 resolution of the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. Her significance extends beyond a name on a signature page. Contemporaneous correspondence and the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility report, known as OPR, document her participation in defense presentations, proposals to avoid incarceration, objections to sex offender registration and disputes over notifying survivors.

Her December 7, 2007 letter is especially important. Sanchez asked the United States Attorney’s Office to postpone victim notification letters until their contents could be discussed with the defense. The same letter transmitted Epstein’s reaffirmation of the agreement and a notice setting a state plea hearing. It connects her individual actions to the later litigation over the secrecy of the federal resolution.

Important Points

Sanchez represented Epstein as a private defense lawyer. She did not serve as a prosecutor deciding his case.
Her federal prosecution background was in the United States Attorney’s Office. The record does not support describing her as the Palm Beach County state prosecutor responsible for the original case.
She and Gerald Lefcourt presented defense arguments to federal prosecutors in February 2007. She subsequently attended several additional meetings, although other attorneys led particular presentations and drafted particular provisions.
She proposed a resolution without mandatory imprisonment in August 2007 and pressed against sex offender registration in September. The signed agreement retained both incarceration and registration requirements.
She signed the September agreement and the October addendum. The addendum concerned the selection and payment of an attorney representative for victims; it was not a second criminal plea.
Her December request to delay victim notification is documented in her own letter, OPR’s account and the 2019 district court opinion.
OPR considered disclosure of Menchel’s earlier relationship with Sanchez prudent, but found no evidence that he arranged the plea as a favor to her.
The later courts addressed the victims’ enforcement rights and the agreement’s geographic reach. Those rulings were not criminal judgments against Sanchez.

Professional Background and the Federal Office

The LS Law Firm’s biography identifies Sanchez as a former federal prosecutor and a shareholder of the firm. It lists a 1986 bachelor’s degree from the University of Miami and a 1990 law degree from Georgetown. Before forming the firm, she chaired Fowler White Burnett’s white collar criminal defense group. Her stated practice includes securities fraud, money laundering, public corruption and other white collar matters.

Her professional association biography describes service as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia and Southern District of Florida. It also identifies her former role as Deputy Chief of the Major Crimes Section in Miami. This background explains her familiarity with several federal officials involved in the Epstein investigation.

OPR’s employment chronology dates her service in the Southern District office from 2000 to September 2005. She had been a deputy chief while Matthew Menchel headed the section. By the time she contacted the office for Epstein, she was in private practice. Her former government position should therefore be kept separate from the prosecutorial authority exercised by Menchel, Andrew Lourie, Jeffrey Sloman and Alexander Acosta.

The November 2006 Representation Letter

Sanchez’s November 15, 2006 letter told prosecutor A. Marie Villafaña that Sanchez and New York lawyer Gerald Lefcourt would deal directly with the federal office on Epstein’s behalf. She asked that communications be directed to them and requested the list of materials the prosecutor wanted. The document places her in the federal defense effort months before the final agreement negotiations.

The surrounding correspondence shows that Sanchez also contacted First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey Sloman. She presented Epstein as willing to cooperate and be transparent. Villafaña requested material previously given to state authorities and computer equipment removed from Epstein’s home before the Palm Beach police search. Sanchez’s assurances of cooperation and the prosecutor’s requests are distinct facts; the letter alone does not establish that the requested material was produced.

The January 2007 exchange records disagreement over whether a defense presentation should precede document production. Villafaña wanted to review the records first. Sanchez then contacted Lourie, a former colleague, and obtained a meeting. Lourie told OPR that listening to defense theories could help the prosecution. Villafaña believed the meeting was premature and warned that the requested documents had not been supplied.

The February Presentations and Defense Arguments

The February 1, 2007 meeting brought Sanchez and Lefcourt before Lourie and Villafaña. Their submission challenged federal jurisdiction and the evidence concerning interstate travel and Epstein’s knowledge of victims’ ages. They also invoked the Justice Department’s policy concerning successive prosecutions and attacked witness credibility. OPR describes these as arguments repeatedly raised during the defense campaign to stop a federal case.

OPR’s account of the presentation makes clear that the credibility attacks were defense assertions. They are not findings that the young witnesses were untruthful. Villafaña told investigators that neither she nor Lourie was persuaded at the meeting. The report subsequently describes her efforts to test the defense claims, corroborate witness accounts and seek advice from federal child exploitation specialists.

The February 20 followup meeting included production by Sanchez and Lefcourt of recordings from the state investigation. They later provided transcripts. Villafaña reviewed the material as part of her investigation. The record therefore contains both defense challenges and documented investigative work in response, rather than a simple account in which a lawyer’s accusation automatically became a government conclusion.

The June Meeting and Menchel’s Initial Plea Overture

The June 2007 meeting arrangements show Menchel communicating directly with Sanchez. The meeting took place on June 26 with Sanchez, Lefcourt, Roy Black and Alan Dershowitz participating for Epstein. Dershowitz led the presentation. Sanchez’s attendance is documented, but the principal presentation at that meeting should not be credited to her alone.

Menchel’s July 3, 2007 email reported that he had already discussed a possible state resolution with Sanchez. He said a state plea involving jail and sex offender registration might satisfy the United States Attorney. According to the same account, Sanchez rejected that possibility for the defense. The initial overture thus did not produce immediate acceptance of the government’s terms.

Menchel’s explanation to Villafaña described the conversation as an informal exploration before the June 26 meeting, undertaken with Acosta’s knowledge. Villafaña objected that the approach bypassed consultation with her, investigators and victims. Their disagreement is relevant to how the office handled the case. It does not establish that Sanchez had authority to determine the office’s charging policy.

The August Proposal to Avoid Imprisonment

The July 31, 2007 negotiation session included Sanchez, Lefcourt and Black on the defense side. Federal officials presented terms requiring incarceration, registration and a mechanism for victims to seek damages. Villafaña distributed a sentencing calculation showing the much longer prison exposure she believed a federal prosecution would carry. Defense counsel argued for greater flexibility under a state resolution.

Sanchez’s August 2 counterproposal asked for two years of home confinement rather than mandatory incarceration. It also proposed reporting and supervision, monetary payments, community service, counseling, drug testing and restrictions on unsupervised contact with victims. Her letter portrayed the package as sufficiently punitive and emphasized Epstein’s age and lack of a prior arrest. Those characterizations were advocacy for her client.

The government’s August 3 reply rejected the premise that prosecutors had agreed state imprisonment was inappropriate. It insisted that two years of incarceration was the minimum needed to satisfy the federal interest. It also denied that a plea to two federal misdemeanors had been offered and said the damages arrangement applied to all minor victims identified in the investigation, rather than only those associated with an initial charging plan.

The report’s account of that reply identifies Menchel as its sender and August 3 as his last day at the United States Attorney’s Office. The final September agreement later required 18 months in county jail. That change should not be attributed to Sanchez alone: OPR describes continuing negotiations involving several lawyers and government officials.

Computer Evidence and the September 7 Meeting

The August 2007 computer dispute records Sanchez’s successful request to Lourie for a joint stay of litigation over computer evidence. Villafaña had declined a stay requested by Black, but Sanchez contacted Lourie on August 22 and obtained agreement to defer the litigation until after Acosta’s planned meeting with the defense. This is a specific, documented instance of her pursuing a request through a supervisory official.

Villafaña’s account of the evidence dispute explains why she opposed delay: she believed the computers could be important to proving the case. Her belief does not establish what the equipment contained. Nor does Sanchez’s participation in the legal dispute establish that she removed, destroyed or concealed the equipment herself.

The September 7, 2007 meeting placed Sanchez alongside Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz at Acosta’s first meeting with Epstein’s defense team. OPR says Starr led the federalism argument that the matter should remain with state authorities. The attendees included federal prosecutors, a Justice Department child exploitation official and FBI supervisors. The report does not make Sanchez the author of every position advanced at that meeting.

The Final Registration Dispute

Sanchez’s September 21, 2007 email said she wanted to finalize the agreement and believed one issue remained. She sought assistance from an official who was on vacation. The message is reproduced in OPR’s chronology, which identifies Sloman as the recipient and records his forwarding it internally. The redacted standalone email should not be used to identify its recipients without that corroborating account.

OPR’s September 21 account also records Lourie’s response that Sanchez had not participated in the recent negotiations. That observation is limited by its context. The report documents her participation before and after that interval, so it cannot reasonably be read as saying she had no role in the case or agreement.

Sanchez’s September 22 emails to Lourie vigorously opposed lifetime sex offender registration. She argued that the defense had misunderstood whether the proposed state offense required registration, claimed registration was unnecessarily severe and urged reconsideration. She also invoked the defense’s preference for a federal prison camp and concern for Epstein’s safety. These were disputed defense positions, not findings that registration was legally unnecessary or that Epstein posed no risk.

The subsequent negotiations show Lefkowitz continuing the registration challenge. Prosecutors did not remove the requirement. The signed agreement called for a plea to an offense requiring registration. Sanchez’s attempt to obtain a different result is therefore distinguishable from the outcome actually secured.

The Agreement Sanchez Signed

The September 24, 2007 counterpart identifies Sanchez as attorney for Jeffrey Epstein and records her signature and date. Epstein and Lefcourt also executed counterparts. OPR identifies Villafaña as the government signatory to the original agreement. Acosta authorized the resolution as United States Attorney; Sanchez signed for the defense and possessed no authority to grant federal immunity herself.

The agreement’s operative terms required guilty pleas to the pending state charge and an additional offense requiring sex offender registration. The binding sentencing recommendation totaled 30 months: consecutive county jail terms of 12 and six months, followed by 12 months of community control. The agreement also created a route for identified victims to pursue civil damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, subject to specified conditions and waivers.

The prosecution and confidentiality provisions promised conditional protection against federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida. They also covered potential coconspirators, anticipated that the agreement would remain outside the public record and provided for notice to Epstein before compelled disclosure. Pending federal grand jury subpoenas would be held in abeyance, while evidence covered by the agreement was to be preserved. The document was not a universal release of every possible offense in every jurisdiction.

The drafting history of coconspirator protection attributes the late proposal extending protection to any potential coconspirators to Lefkowitz. The report separately attributes the proposed confidentiality clause to him. Sanchez’s signature connects her to the final agreement, but does not justify assigning her individual authorship of those provisions without supporting correspondence.

The full agreement’s separate history provides the broader institutional context. Its central consequence was a conditional end to the Florida federal prosecution effort in return for a state disposition. Sanchez’s individual record concerns the legal positions she advanced and documents she executed within that larger negotiation.

Victims’ Civil Claims and the October Addendum

The October dispute over victims’ representation involved Sanchez as well as Lefkowitz. She contacted Sloman and argued that Epstein had not intended to pay the fees of contested civil lawsuits if settlement negotiations failed. Villafaña disagreed with the defense’s interpretation. Sloman instructed that the prosecutor answer Sanchez directly, expressing concern that different government speakers allowed the defense to exploit differences within the office.

The October 9, 2007 letter to Sanchez rejected her proposed approach as outside the signed agreement. The prosecutor suggested using an independent person to help select counsel, while preserving victims’ choice of lawyer and whether to pursue mediation. The letter is evidence of a contested implementation process, not an agreement that all survivors had to accept a settlement selected by Epstein’s team.

The signed addendum’s terms allowed the government to assign selection of an attorney representative to an independent third party. The government and Epstein retained rights to make good faith objections before the selection became final. The parties would jointly explain the representative’s role and the payment arrangement. This structure did not make Sanchez counsel to the victims.

The addendum’s fee provision distinguished the agreed funding of a representative during consideration of settlements from fees and costs of contested litigation. Once contested proceedings began, the particular payment obligation in paragraph seven ceased. The text preserved separate statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable fees and costs. It should not be summarized as eliminating every possible right to recover legal expenses.

Sanchez’s addendum counterpart is dated October 29, 2007. Epstein and Lefcourt signed that day as well, while the government execution is dated October 30. OPR says Sloman signed for Villafaña at her request. The October dates concern this addendum, not the creation of the original September agreement.

The December Request to Delay Victim Notification

Sanchez’s December 7 letter transmitted Epstein’s written reaffirmation of the agreement and addendum. It also advised that the plea and sentencing hearing had been scheduled for January 4, 2008, before Judge Sandra McSorley. In the same letter, Sanchez requested that prosecutors “hold off” sending victim notification letters until the defense could discuss their contents.

OPR’s account of the government response records that Villafaña had prepared letters and sought permission to send them that day. Sloman directed her to hold the letters. The report also notes that the FBI case agent wanted notification to proceed and did not believe the defense should control its drafting or issuance. Sanchez’s request and the government’s decision are both documented, with responsibility for each assigned separately.

Judge Kenneth Marra’s February 2019 opinion likewise cites Sanchez’s December 7 request and states that no letters went out that December. It also recounts Acosta’s December 19 response to her: the office intended to notify victims of the federal resolution, while leaving notification of the state proceedings to the State Attorney’s discretion. The exchange became part of the record concerning how survivors were excluded from the process.

Acosta’s December 19 letter additionally proposed revised language concerning victims’ rights to seek damages. The defense ultimately rejected that proposed modification. It must therefore be distinguished from the October addendum that the parties signed. Receipt of Acosta’s letter by Sanchez does not establish that every proposed term became part of the binding agreement.

The January 2008 Meeting and Continued Pressure

The January 7, 2008 meeting involved Sanchez, Acosta and Sloman. According to Sloman’s notes, Sanchez alleged that the office’s media spokesperson had improperly disclosed information and suggested that a more lenient resolution could avoid an unpleasant dispute in Washington. After Acosta left for another engagement, Sloman declined to continue without a witness present. This account comes from the government’s contemporaneous notes as assessed by OPR.

The telephone discussion later that day included Sanchez, Starr and Lefkowitz. The defense sought a different charge, no jail time and no registration. Those proposals would have removed major elements of the signed bargain. Federal officials did not accept that outcome. Subsequent review in Washington eventually rejected the defense’s request for intervention.

Sanchez’s March 11, 2008 email apologized to a recipient whose name is redacted in the released copy if her handling of the Epstein matter had overstepped boundaries. She said she had intended to protect the office. The message supports the existence of strained discussions during continuing representation. It is not, by itself, an admission of unlawful conduct, and the redaction does not permit identifying the recipient from the email alone.

The June 2008 State Plea and Sentence

The final Justice Department review ended on June 23, 2008, when the Office of the Deputy Attorney General declined to intervene. Prosecutors then required Epstein to enter his plea, be sentenced and surrender by June 30. The state plea occurred more than nine months after the original federal agreement, following repeated defense challenges and postponements.

OPR’s account of the June 30 hearing identifies Jack Goldberger as the lawyer who appeared with Epstein. Epstein pleaded guilty to felony solicitation of prostitution and procurement of a minor for prostitution. The court imposed consecutive jail terms totaling 18 months, followed by 12 months of community control. Sanchez’s signature on the federal agreement does not establish that she conducted this hearing or made statements attributed in the transcript to Goldberger or the state prosecutor.

The subsequent work release dispute concerned decisions by the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office and the federal prosecutors’ response. The NPA did not expressly address work release. OPR describes the sheriff approving the arrangement, under which Epstein spent much of the day away from custody. The evidence reviewed here does not attribute the sheriff’s decision or the particular jail arrangements to Sanchez.

Continued Representation and Later Correspondence

A November 3, 2010 court filing bears Sanchez’s electronic signature as counsel for Epstein in the civil case identified as M.J. v. Epstein. It filed a supplemental affidavit supporting a motion to quash service of process. This is direct evidence that her documented legal work for Epstein continued beyond the 2008 plea. The filing is a litigant’s submission and does not itself establish the truth of every assertion in its supporting affidavit.

A September 13, 2011 scheduling email shows Sanchez asking Lesley Groff to arrange a call with Epstein. Groff forwarded the request to him. The record establishes the request and continued contact, but contains neither a transcript of the proposed call nor its subject. It should not be expanded into an account of advice that cannot be read in the document.

The February 21, 2019 exchange shows Epstein forwarding news of Marra’s victims’ rights ruling to Sanchez. She described the outcome as surprising and upsetting. Her speculation about pressure from press coverage was her reaction, not evidence of what motivated the judge. The exchange demonstrates continuing communication about the legal consequences of the earlier agreement.

Menchel’s Prior Relationship With Sanchez and OPR’s Findings

Menchel’s OPR interview disclosed that he and Sanchez briefly dated in 2003, when both worked in the federal office. Acosta, Sloman and Lourie told OPR they had not known of the dating relationship in 2007. The issue matters because Menchel participated in the investigation and spoke directly with Sanchez about a possible resolution.

OPR’s impartiality analysis concluded that Menchel should prudently have informed his supervisors so they could assess the appearance of a loss of impartiality. The office’s Professional Responsibility Officer told investigators that the sensitivity of the case would probably have led him to recommend that Menchel step back. OPR did not conclude that the earlier relationship influenced the investigation.

The separate allegation of a personal favor arose from Villafaña’s later recollection of a conversation with Sloman. She could not confirm whether his wording had described a known event or speculation, and she said she knew of no information expressly establishing an exchange of favors. Sloman did not recall making the remark and denied believing that Menchel had arranged the resolution as a favor.

OPR’s conclusion on that allegation was that no evidence supported the suggestion that Menchel instigated the plea to favor Sanchez. The report relied on the contemporaneous record, the defense’s initial rejection of the state plea concept and evidence of Acosta’s authority over the decision. Reporting the relationship without this conclusion would materially distort what the investigation found.

What the Professional Responsibility Review Did and Did Not Decide

The November 2020 OPR executive summary found no professional misconduct by the federal prosecutors under the standards applied in its inquiry. It nevertheless found that Acosta exercised poor judgment in using the nonprosecution agreement and in failing to ensure that the state would notify federally identified victims about the plea hearing. OPR also criticized the government’s lack of forthrightness and sensitivity toward victims.

The full report’s discussion of personal connections acknowledged that Epstein hired lawyers with relationships to government officials. OPR did not find that those connections established favoritism, bias or other improper motivation by its subjects. Its inquiry principally assessed Justice Department personnel. It was not a disciplinary adjudication of every defense lawyer, and it should not be described as a blanket exoneration of Sanchez or as a finding that she committed a crime.

Victims’ Rights Litigation and the Agreement’s Legal Reach

The 2019 district court decision found that the government violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by failing to confer with victims before entering the agreement. The court discussed the defense objections to notification, including Sanchez’s letter. The proceeding was a challenge to the government’s handling of victims’ rights. It did not convict Sanchez or impose criminal liability on her.

The Eleventh Circuit’s April 15, 2021 en banc decision denied Courtney Wild’s petition because the CVRA did not authorize her freestanding civil action when no federal prosecution had been commenced. The majority strongly criticized the treatment of survivors while reaching that procedural conclusion. The decision therefore cannot fairly be summarized as judicial approval of keeping survivors uninformed.

The Supreme Court docket in Wild’s case records denial of review on February 22, 2022. That left the appellate judgment in place. A denial of review is not a new Supreme Court merits opinion deciding whether the underlying handling of survivors was proper.

The Second Circuit’s September 17, 2024 Maxwell decision addressed a different issue: whether the Florida agreement prevented prosecution in the Southern District of New York. It held that the agreement did not bind New York prosecutors and affirmed Maxwell’s judgment. This limits claims that the bargain Sanchez signed guaranteed nationwide immunity to every possible beneficiary.

The Supreme Court’s Maxwell docket records denial of her petition on October 6, 2025. The denial left the direct appeal judgment intact without supplying a new merits ruling. These later proceedings establish legal limits on the agreement; they do not establish that Sanchez litigated each subsequent challenge.

The August 25, 2026 collateral review opinion rejected Maxwell’s renewed NPA claim as procedurally barred and found that her cited EFTA releases did not change the agreement’s legal reach. Judge Paul Engelmayer denied her petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. That postconviction statute is different from 18 U.S.C. § 2255, the civil damages provision used in Epstein’s agreement. The ruling did not adjudicate Sanchez’s conduct.

Evidence and Document Appearances

EFTA00176089, page 3: Sanchez’s November 15, 2006 representation letter. The page itself is stamped EFTA00176091.
EFTA00176603, pages 2 and 3: the August 3, 2007 government response to her counterproposal. The packet contains repeated copies of the same letter, not separate negotiations.
EFTA00013497: the September 21, 2007 request to finalize the agreement. OPR supplies the corroborating context for officials redacted in the standalone copy.
EFTA00040089, pages 3 through 15: a court filed composite containing the agreement, signature counterparts and addendum. Sanchez’s NPA and addendum counterparts appear on packet pages 11 and 15. Their dates are independently confirmed in the Supreme Court appendix.
EFTA00013745: the October 9, 2007 government letter addressing her proposal for victims’ representation and settlement arrangements.
EFTA00013533, pages 1 through 3: the December 7 letter, Epstein’s affirmation and the notice of the planned January hearing. The actual guilty plea took place in June 2008.
EFTA00013725: her March 11, 2008 email expressing concern that she had overstepped in handling the case. The recipient is not identified in the released header.
EFTA00687534: the September 13, 2011 request for a call with Epstein, forwarded by Groff.
EFTA01032691, pages 1 and 2: the February 21, 2019 exchange reacting to Marra’s ruling. It documents the speakers’ reactions, not the judge’s reasoning.

How to Read the Record

OPR’s discussion of defense access describes prosecutors’ explanations for meeting with Epstein’s lawyers. Some believed hearing defense arguments was useful and procedurally fair; Villafaña thought repeated presentations produced delay and risk. This disagreement supports scrutiny of how access affected the process. It does not by itself establish bribery or an illicit agreement between Sanchez and a prosecutor.

Butterfly Bureau’s account of the Florida deal places Sanchez within the broader defense network. Its interpretation of institutional access is separate from the primary evidence documenting her own actions.

The December notification letter illustrates the distinction that matters most. It is possible to establish what Sanchez asked the government to do, compare that request with the government’s response and assess the effect on survivors without inventing motives or attributing another lawyer’s conduct to her. The most reliable account follows those documented acts and preserves the limits of the evidence.

Key Takeaways

Sanchez was an active defense participant whose work is documented in original correspondence, meeting records and signed agreements.
Her most clearly attributable positions include seeking a resolution without mandatory jail time, opposing sex offender registration and requesting delay of victim notification.
The government rejected several of her requests. The final agreement retained incarceration and registration, while victim notification was delayed.
Her October addendum signature concerned the selection and funding of a victims’ attorney representative. It did not make her the victims’ lawyer.
The Menchel relationship raised an appearance issue, but OPR found no evidence that he instigated the plea as a favor to her.
Goldberger’s state court advocacy, Lefkowitz’s particular drafting proposals and the sheriff’s work release decision require separate attribution.
Later court rulings restricted the available CVRA remedy and rejected nationwide application of the agreement in Maxwell’s prosecution. None was a criminal judgment against Sanchez.

Sources

The LS Law Firm biography: professional background and the firm’s identified portrait of Sanchez.
Women’s White Collar Defense Association profile: her federal prosecution background.
Justice Department OPR report, November 2020, reproduced in Maxwell docket document 293 attachment 1: detailed chronology, correspondence, meeting accounts and findings. Page links in the text point to the relevant sections of the reproduced government report.
Justice Department OPR executive summary: official findings on the prosecutors’ conduct and treatment of victims.
Supreme Court appendix reproducing the agreement and addendum: PDF pages 54 through 68, including Sanchez’s NPA signature on page 64 and addendum signature on page 68.
EFTA00176089 extracted document: November 2006 representation letter.
EFTA00176603 extracted document: August 2007 government reply.
EFTA00013497 government release: September 21 email, also reproduced and explained in OPR.
EFTA00040089 extracted court exhibit: agreement, signature counterparts and addendum.
EFTA00013745 extracted document: October 2007 letter to Sanchez.
EFTA00013533 released letter and attachments: December 7 request concerning victim notification.
EFTA00013725 government release: March 2008 email.
M.J. v. Epstein, docket document 12, November 3, 2010: signed notice filing a supplemental affidavit.
EFTA00687534 document text: September 2011 scheduling correspondence.
EFTA01032691 extracted correspondence: February 2019 reaction to the victims’ rights ruling.
Doe v. United States, docket document 435, February 21, 2019: district court findings concerning the CVRA and victim notification.
In re Wild, en banc decision, April 15, 2021: the limits on judicial enforcement through a standalone civil action.
Supreme Court docket 21 351: denial of review in Wild’s case on February 22, 2022.
United States v. Maxwell, September 17, 2024: the Second Circuit’s interpretation of the NPA’s reach.
Supreme Court docket 24 1073: denial of Maxwell’s petition on October 6, 2025.
Maxwell v. United States, docket document 10, August 25, 2026: denial of the collateral petition, including renewed NPA arguments.
Butterfly Bureau, Jeffrey Epstein’s Florida Deal Had Enablers, August 17, 2026: contextual commentary on the defense network, considered separately from the primary records.

PostedOctober 7, 2026