Travel Dates
Hi
Hi
Hi
Not free but good!! Yes but want to talk to you first. We don't want to change our terms!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: V (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:56 AM
To: A (USAFLS)
Subject: Call
Hi [REDACTED]. We had a good call with the dag's chief of staff. They seem ready to greenlight us. Strangely, just an hour later roy black called [REDACTED] to propose a "final solution" (his words not mine). [REDACTED] told him to call me. (Imagine that). So are you free later for a conf call if he actually calls?
Not free but good!! Yes but want to talk to you first. We don't want to change our terms!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: V (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:56 AM
To: A (USAFLS)
Subject: Call
Hi [REDACTED]. We had a good call with the dag's chief of staff. They seem ready to greenlight us. Strangely, just an hour later roy black called [REDACTED] to propose a "final solution" (his words not mine). [REDACTED] told him to call me. (Imagine that). So are you free later for a conf call if he actually calls?
Not free but good!! Yes but want to talk to you first. We don't want to change our terms!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: V (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:56 AM
To: A (USAFLS)
Subject: Call
Hi [REDACTED]. We had a good call with the dag's chief of staff. They seem ready to greenlight us. Strangely, just an hour later roy black called [REDACTED] to propose a "final solution" (his words not mine). [REDACTED] told him to call me. (Imagine that). So are you free later for a conf call if he actually calls?
Sorry. I am at birthday lunch now. I will call as soon as I can. Overall it went well. There is a new development. I will call soon
Original Message ----
From: (FBI)
To: (USAFLS)
Sent: Fri Jun 13 13:05:14 2008
Subject: Epstein
How did the conf call go! Sorry couldn't wait longer!
Sorry. I am at birthday lunch now. I will call as soon as I can. Overall it went well. There is a new development. I will call soon
Original Message ----
From: (FBI)
To: (USAFLS)
Sent: Fri Jun 13 13:05:14 2008
Subject: Epstein
How did the conf call go! Sorry couldn't wait longer!
Sorry. I am at birthday lunch now. I will call as soon as I can. Overall it went well. There is a new development. I will call soon
Original Message ----
From: (FBI)
To: (USAFLS)
Sent: Fri Jun 13 13:05:14 2008
Subject: Epstein
How did the conf call go! Sorry couldn't wait longer!
Are you coming back home?
------Original Message------
From: V (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:56 AM
To: A (USAFLS)
Subject: Call
Hi [REDACTED]. We had a good call with the dag's chief of staff. They seem ready to greenlight us. Strangely, just an hour later roy black called [REDACTED] to propose a "final solution" (his words not mine). [REDACTED] told him to call me. (Imagine that). So are you free later for a conf call if he actually calls?
Are you coming back home?
------Original Message------
From: V (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:56 AM
To: A (USAFLS)
Subject: Call
Hi [REDACTED]. We had a good call with the dag's chief of staff. They seem ready to greenlight us. Strangely, just an hour later roy black called [REDACTED] to propose a "final solution" (his words not mine). [REDACTED] told him to call me. (Imagine that). So are you free later for a conf call if he actually calls?
Are you coming back home?
------Original Message------
From: V (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:56 AM
To: A (USAFLS)
Subject: Call
Hi [REDACTED]. We had a good call with the dag's chief of staff. They seem ready to greenlight us. Strangely, just an hour later roy black called [REDACTED] to propose a "final solution" (his words not mine). [REDACTED] told him to call me. (Imagine that). So are you free later for a conf call if he actually calls?
Hi -- Not today. I am going to meet with about the indictment.
-----Original Message-----
From: [Redacted] (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:23 PM
To: [Redacted]. (USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Call
Are you coming back home?
------Original Message------
From: [Redacted] [Redacted]. (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:56 AM
To: [Redacted] [Redacted] (USAFLS)
Subject: Call
Hi [REDACTED]. We had a good call with the dag's chief of staff. They seem ready to greenlight us. Strangely, just an hour later roy black called [REDACTED] to propose a "final solution" (his words not mine). [REDACTED] told him to call me. (Imagine that). So are you free later for a conf call if he actually calls?
Hi -- Not today. I am going to meet with about the indictment.
-----Original Message-----
From: [Redacted] (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:23 PM
To: [Redacted]. (USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Call
Are you coming back home?
------Original Message------
From: [Redacted] [Redacted]. (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:56 AM
To: [Redacted] [Redacted] (USAFLS)
Subject: Call
Hi [REDACTED]. We had a good call with the dag's chief of staff. They seem ready to greenlight us. Strangely, just an hour later roy black called [REDACTED] to propose a "final solution" (his words not mine). [REDACTED] told him to call me. (Imagine that). So are you free later for a conf call if he actually calls?
Hi -- Not today. I am going to meet with about the indictment.
-----Original Message-----
From: [Redacted] (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:23 PM
To: [Redacted]. (USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Call
Are you coming back home?
------Original Message------
From: [Redacted] [Redacted]. (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:56 AM
To: [Redacted] [Redacted] (USAFLS)
Subject: Call
Hi [REDACTED]. We had a good call with the dag's chief of staff. They seem ready to greenlight us. Strangely, just an hour later roy black called [REDACTED] to propose a "final solution" (his words not mine). [REDACTED] told him to call me. (Imagine that). So are you free later for a conf call if he actually calls?
Can you give the heads up so he doesn't do something unexpected?
-----Original Message-----
From: A (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:23 PM
To: V (USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Call
Are you coming back home?
-----Original Message-----
From: V (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:56 AM
To: A (USAFLS)
Subject: Call
Hi We had a good call with the dag's chief of staff. They seem ready to greenlight us. Strangely, just an hour later roy black called to propose a "final solution" (his words not mine). told him to call me. (Imagine that). So are you free later for a conf call if he actually calls?
One week. We told the DAG that we need his decision by end of next week so we can indict on July 1st before the July 7th state trial.
-----Original Message-----
From: [REDACTED] [REDACTED] (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:51 PM
To: [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]. (USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Call
How long after the final decision--if there is such a thing--does he have before we indict?
-----Original Message-----
From: [Redacted] [Redacted]. (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:45 PM
To: [Redacted] [Redacted] (USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Call
Hi -- Not today. I am going to meet with about the indictment. [ ]
-----Original Message-----
From: (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:23 PM
To: . (USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Call
Are you coming back home?
-----Original Message-----
From: [Redacted]. (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:56 AM
To: [Redacted] (USAFLS)
Subject: Call
Hi
Can you give the heads up so he doesn't do something unexpected?
-----Original Message-----
From: A (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:23 PM
To: V (USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Call
Are you coming back home?
-----Original Message-----
From: V (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:56 AM
To: A (USAFLS)
Subject: Call
Hi We had a good call with the dag's chief of staff. They seem ready to greenlight us. Strangely, just an hour later roy black called to propose a "final solution" (his words not mine). told him to call me. (Imagine that). So are you free later for a conf call if he actually calls?
Hi [ ]
I have support for the New York trip (funding may be an issue though). I have the request prepared but need to add dates of travel when we get them. Talk to you later.
----- Original Message ------
From: [Redacted] . (USAFLS) <
To: [Redacted] (USAFLS)
Cc: [Redacted] (USAFLS)
Sent: Fri Jun 13 15:06:07 2008
Subject: FW: Call -- Urgent!
Someone really needs to talk to Barry. I am happy to do so, if you want, and I will be very nice about it.
-----Original Message-----
From: (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 3:03 PM
To: . (USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Call
He got a strange voice mail from Barry K which the deal was 60 days--he was calling him back to say that is not the deal and the defense knows the deal as does his ASA. So they should do what they want and if it is not in accordance with our agreement we will do whatever we have to do.
-----Original Message-----
From: [Redacted] (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:52 PM
To: [Redacted] (USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Call
Can you give the heads up so he doesn't do something unexpected?
-----Original Message-----
From: (USAFLS)
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:23 PM
To: . (USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Call
Are you coming back home?
Hi all — and I just spoke with Barry Krischer. He began with his usual complaint about us not [ ] communicating with him. I explained that it was the defense who were blocking the channels of communication. He then told us that the current deal he has worked out with Jack Goldberger is 60 days in the County Jail, 2 years community confinement, and 3 years probation. He says that Epstein has agreed to plead to "attempted lewd conduct," which, Barry says, will require registration. We asked Barry to send us the proposed Information so I can look to see whether, in fact, registration will be required. It also sounds like it will not involve a child sex offense.
I told Barry that the defense had told us that Barry objected to Epstein's plea to the procurement charge and to his having to register as a sex offender. Barry said that the testimony in the grand jury would support the procurement charge and that they have never discussed sex offender registration.
Apparently Jack Goldberger told Barry that the delay was caused by DOJ's internal investigation into my conduct referring business to my boyfriend's "law partner." We explained that the delay is caused by the defense appealing our decisions throughout the Justice Department.
He also said that Jack Goldberger had shown him a letter from [ ] Acosta about having to plead in two weeks.
He asked [ ] and I to get back to him after we review the Information to tell him if it is okay to go ahead with the plea deal.
Strangely enough, I haven't heard from Roy Black.
I will let you know when we receive the Information.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Hi guys sorry to bother you, but I need this info about asap so I can get the paperwork down to Miami. Thanks.
Birth Date of Witness:
FBI I.D. No.:
Birthplace:
Social Security No.:
Alias:
Address of Witness:
Also, do you have the name and number of the AUSA in New York? I want to run this by him/her first.
Thanks.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Phone
Hi guys sorry to bother you, but I need this info about N asap so I can get the paperwork down to Miami. Thanks.
Birth Date of Witness:
FBI I.D. No.:
Birthplace:
Social Security No.:
Alias:
Address of Witness:
Also, do you have the name and number of the AUSA in New York? I want to run this by him/her first.
Thanks.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Unfortunately, the only info we have for is her address. Source info indicates she's from Brazil. There are numerous name matches in ice records. We need to review the a files of the ones that match closest to determine her dob and soc. Any way we could get those particulars through her attorney? (Needed for travel arrangements?)
Hi [Redacted] – Well, Roy took your message to mean that he should call [Redacted]. [Redacted] is out of the office, so there hasn’t been any communication. [Redacted] and I may call Roy later today or [Redacted] is going to call him back and tell him to call me.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
[ ] and I spoke with Roy. Roy said that he had called because he had heard that [ ] had discussed the matter with Barry Krischer and Roy wanted to see if there was any way to wrap this up before July 7th. Roy also said that he had seen a letter from that said that the matter of incarceration would be left to the State. (I am not certain what letter he is referring to, but I think wrote a letter about not taking a position on [ ] where Epstein would be incarcerated, not the length of time.) So, Roy wondered whether we would go away if Epstein took Barry's 60-day deal. [ ] explained that had not had substantive discussions with Barry about the case and that all communication regarding the case is being handled by and me. In response to the question of whether there was anything that could "make this go away," we said that our position is that if Epstein stops the process in Washington and pleads in accordance with the terms of the signed agreement, then we will perform pursuant to the agreement. explained that if Epstein pleads to something else or gets sentenced to a lower amount, then we will consider that a breach of our agreement and we will proceed accordingly. On that note, has there been any word from Washington? Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney
Hi [ ] and [ ] - Two things: Do you think [ ] and I should call Barry Krischer and tell him about our conversation with Roy and the Office's position? One of our best witnesses has hired an attorney. He is a former state prosecutor and seems like a good guy. He asked me for a status and I told him that all I could say is that it remains my hope that we will charge JE. He would like to advocate on behalf of his client that we move forward. Would the DAG consider hearing from the victims? Assistant U.S. Attorney
Hi -- I sent an e-mail to about the Clark case asking for the info regarding the cp so I can prepare the indictment. Our office has approved the immunity request so it is now up with Washington. Don't know how long they will take to review it. I also am still waiting to hear from lawyer about whether he will agree to meet or if we have to wait for the grand jury. Assistant U.S. Attorney -----Original Message----- From: [Redacted] [Redacted]. (FBI) Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 1:37 PM To: [Redacted] [Redacted]. (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Epstein -- Call with Roy Black Sounds fishy to us. Not sure what the benefit could be. Anything from your office on the immunity letter and NY trip. On another note, how do you want to handle other case (Jonathan Clark). Is grand jury next Thursday? She is meeting with tomorrow 43 images of CP transmitted. Original Message From: (USAFLS)< To: (USAFLS); Acosta, (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Sent: Wed Jun 18 13:53:07 2008 Subject: Epstein -- Call with Roy Black and I spoke with Roy. Roy said that he had called because he had heard that had discussed the matter with Barry Krischer and Roy wanted to see if there was any way to wrap this up before July 7th. Roy also said that he had seen a letter from that said that the matter of incarceration would be left to the State. (I am not certain what letter he is referring to, but I think [ ] wrote a letter about not taking a position on where Epstein would be incarcerated, not the length of time.) So, Roy wondered whether we would go away if Epstein took Barry's 60-day deal. 903 explained that had not had substantive discussions with Barry about the case and that all communication regarding the case is being handled by and me. In response to the question of whether there was anything that could "make this go away," we said that our position is that if Epstein stops the process in Washington and pleads in accordance with the terms of the signed agreement, then we will perform pursuant to the agreement. explained that if Epstein pleads to something else or gets sentenced to a lower amount, then we will consider that a breach of our agreement and we will proceed accordingly. On that note, has there been any word from Washington? Thank you. The image contains the text "Assistant U.S. Attorney" followed by several blacked-out horizontal bars of varying lengths. This appears to be a redacted document, likely a form or a report, where sensitive information has been obscured.
Hi [ ] -I talked with [ ] about communicating the substance of our conversation with Roy Black to Barry to avoid the miscommunication that the defense loves to do. What do you think of this? Dear Barry: I just wanted to let you know that and I spoke with Roy Black yesterday regarding the Epstein case. Roy [ ] asked whether there was a way to resolve the federal and state litigation simultaneously and mentioned your desire to wrap up the case before you retired. We informed him that the Office's position is that if Epstein promptly abides by the terms of the signed non-prosecution agreement, we will end our investigation. If Mr. Epstein chooses to go forward with a different plea in the State, that is his prerogative, but we will consider it a breach of the non-prosecution agreement and will proceed accordingly. The terms of the agreement call for Mr. Epstein to plead guilty to the state indictment and also to a state charge that requires sex offender registration, specifically the charge of procuring minors to engage in prostitution, at least 18 months imprisonment, and an agreement that the victims can pursue damages claims as though Mr. Epstein had been convicted of the federal offenses. Our agreement does not address probationary periods following the term of incarceration. Those are statutorily set on the federal side, so we have left that issue to the defense to negotiate with you. If you have any questions, please let me know. Assistant U.S. Attorney
Was that not the harshest article ever? Ironically, in their latest appeal to the DAG, yes, that is right, the DAG! - they claim that I am persecuting him because of his close ties to the Clintons. Assistant U.S. Attorney From: (USAWAW) Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 2:38 PM To: (USAFLS) Subject: Vanity Fair Saw your man/case mentioned in the Bill Clinton article.
Hi all - I just got an email from I lawyer saying that, if we get the immunity, we can meet with her on Friday, June 27th, in New York. The application is up in DC now. It should be a sure thing, but you never know. Let's talk tomorrow about planning the trip. Assistant U.S. Attorney
Thanks John. ----- Original Message From: Roth, John (ODAG) (SMO) To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Soffer, Gil / (ODAG) (SMO) Sent: Fri Jun 20 09:01:18 2008 Subject: FW: Epstein FYI. Gil and I have finished our review. Even if we were to substitute our judgment for yours, we believe that this case is one that is appropriately in federal court. We also see nothing in the conduct of the USAO that gives us any reason to doubt that the case is being handled professionally. We briefed the DAG on it yesterday and he agrees. The attached late submission throws a slight wrinkle into this, but I think we can still satisfy your timetable. I have asked Starr and Lefkowitz for an electronic version of whatever he is going to send, to be sent this morning. I am going to schedule a telephone conference for this afternoon or this evening to let them know, but I thought you should know so you can start planning. Please don't reach out to defense counsel until we let them know. From: Kenneth Starr [mailto:| Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 9:11 PM To: Roth, John (ODAG) Cc: Jay Lefkowitz; Subject: Re: Epstein Dear Mr. Roth, As you have requested, we are sending our supplemental submissions and binder of materials to the Department for delivery tomorrow. Attached here is our introductory letter. I will be traveling abroad next week and kindly ask that you contact my colleague in this matter, Jay Lefkowitz, by email or by telephone at Kind regards. Kenneth W. Starr Kirkland & Ellis LLP "Roth, John (ODAG)" <John. Roth3@usdoj.gov> 06/11/2008 07:08 AM Το CC Subject Epstein Sorry for the phone tag. We have all of your letters to both SDFL and the Criminal Division, but feel free to supplement that if you wish. It is best simply to send it by mail to me, with a copy to your contact in the USAO. If you do decide to send us something, it would be most useful to get it by the middle of next week. Thanks. John Roth Associate Deputy Attorney General ********** The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited I and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return mail or by mail to postmaster@kirkland.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments.
I am in shock. Could this really happen? The image contains a redacted document. The visible text indicates an "Assistant U.S. Attorney." The surrounding email context suggests a discussion, possibly related to a legal matter involving an individual named Epstein. ---Original Message---- From: (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 9:11 AM To: Roth, John (ODAG) (SMO); (USAFLS) Cc: Soffer, Gil 1 (ODAG) (SMO) Subject: Re: Epstein Thanks John. Original Message From: Roth, John (ODAG) (SMO) To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Soffer, Gil . (ODAG) (SMO) Sent: Fri Jun 20 09:01:18 2008 Subject: FW: Epstein FYI. Gil and I have finished our review. Even if we were to substitute our judgment for yours, we believe that this case is one that is appropriately in federal court. We also see nothing in the conduct of the USAO that gives us any reason to doubt that the case is being handled professionally. We briefed the DAG on it yesterday and he agrees. The attached late submission throws a slight wrinkle into this, but I think we can still satisfy your timetable. I have asked Starr and Lefkowitz for an electronic version of whatever he is going to send, to be sent this morning. I am going to schedule a telephone conference for this afternoon or this evening to let them know, but I thought you should know so you can start planning. Please don't reach out to defense counsel until we let them know. From: Kenneth Starr [mailto: Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 9:11 PM To: Roth, John (ODAG) Cc: Jay Lefkowitz; Subject: Re: Epstein Dear Mr. Roth, As you have requested, we are sending our supplemental submissions and binder of materials to the Department for delivery tomorrow. Attached here is our introductory letter. I will be traveling abroad next week and kindly ask that you contact my colleague in this matter, Jay Lefkowitz, by email or by telephone at Kind regards. Kenneth W. Starr Kirkland & Ellis LLP "Roth, John (ODAG)" John.Roth3@usdoj.gov 06/11/2008 07:08 AM Το CC Subject Epstein Sorry for the phone tag. We have all of your letters to both SDFL and the Criminal Division, but feel free to supplement that if you wish. It is best simply to send it by mail to me, with a copy to your contact in the USAO. If you do decide to send us something, it would be most useful to get it by the middle of next week. Thanks. John Roth Associate Deputy Attorney General ********** The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited I and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return mail or by mail to postmaster@kirkland.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments.
Attachments: Letter to J. Roth from S. Thacker.pdf; Response to Letter.pdf; Summary Of Misconduct.pdf; Principal Submission.pdf fyi From: Roth, John (ODAG) (SMO) Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 1:56 PM To: S [REDACTED] (USAFLS); S [REDACTED] (USAFLS) Subject: FW: Epstein - On behalf of Jay Lefkowitz and Ken Star This was just dropped on me. Given the volume of material, I think it will be best to wait until Monday to call Lefkowitz. Let me know if that upsets your plans too much. From: Ami Sheth [mailto:ASheth@kirkland.com] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 12:26 PM To: Roth, John (ODAG) Cc: Jay Lefkowitz; Kenneth Starr; Ken Starr Subject: Epstein - On behalf of Jay Lefkowitz and Ken Star Dear Mr. Roth, As promised in yesterday's letter to you, we have attached the followin documents to this email: (1) Principal Submission, (2) Summary of Misconduct, (3) Response to Letter and (4) Response to CEOS'sLetter by StephanieThacker. We respectfullyrequest and wouldgreatly appreciate the opportunity to speak with you in personabout this matter. Kind Regards, Kenneth W. Starr and Jay P. Lefkowitz Kirkland & Ellis LLP The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return -mail or by -mail to postmaster@kirkland.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments.
I am just reading through all of the new submissions. I don't know which makes me angrier, all of the blatant lies, or telling them (Lilly, no doubt), that I am "unsupervisable." sorry I got you into this. On another, ironic, note. Today, Epstein's lawyers are filing motions to stay the four federal lawsuits against Epstein, under 18 USC 3509(k), which states: "If, at any time that a cause of action for recovery of compensation for damage or injury to the person of a child exists, a criminal action is pending which arises out of the same occurrence and in which the child is the victim, the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the criminal action and any mention of the civil action during the criminal proceeding is prohibited." I guess it saves me the trouble of filing the motion after we indict. And, for the record, I still haven't met Bert 0., and he is neitherillaw partner" nor his "law school roommate." Assistant U.S. Attorney
AUSA on NY drug case is . [Redacted] ----- Original Message ------ From: V [Redacted] (USAFLS) < To: H [Redacted]; [Redacted] Sent: Thu Jun 19 15:37:58 2008 Subject: Travel to New York Hi all - I just got an email from [redacted] lawyer saying that, if we get the immunity, we can meet with her on Friday, June 27th, in New York. The application is up in DC now. It should be a sure thing, but you never know. Let's talk tomorrow about planning the trip. Assistant U.S. Attorney
Ok. hoping to hear from DAG's office today giving the green light. Let's talk when that decision is made. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 9:15 AM To: (FBI); (FBI) Cc: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Trip to New York, etc. We will not be interviewing I [ ] in New York. Her attorney gave a copy of the grand jury subpoena to Epstein's lawyers. They, in turn, promptly sent it on to Washington complaining, yet again, about me. So, I do not want to do an interview with him present, and we will have to put her in the grand jury. Given that, let's take the New York section out of the indictment so we can present the indictment Tuesday morning. Then we can do interview in the afternoon with plans to supersede. It probably makes sense to wait on the rest of the interviews until we hear what has to say, so let's plan to do the New York trip in a few weeks. - I will revise everything accordingly and send it down to you. We have another girl from Florida, so I will replace our New York Jane Doe with her. Assistant U.S. Attorney
Hi all – Sorry to bother. [Redacted] and I are wondering if you have heard from the DAG. Assistant U.S. Attorney
I agree. [REDACTED] can you make this communication today please. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: [REDACTED] [REDACTED] (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 6:45 AM To: [REDACTED] (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein If we get the go-ahead, I think should immediately notify Lefkowitz that JE has until COB Monday June 30 to comply with the 9/24 Agreement as modified by the USA's 12/17 letter otherwise the Office will deem him in breach.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Dear Roy and Jack: I am just writing to re-state that it is the Government's position that we have a signed, binding agreement and that there is no need for further modification. Please keep us informed of the date and time of the change of plea and sentencing. Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney
Let's talk about going to the COP
Hi - I think I have designed a solution to the 2255 issue and I will call you to discuss the plea. I am still finishing up these search warrants. As soon as they are done, I will give you a call.
Hi all I just spoke with - She said that it varies from judge to judge, and Judge McSorley can vary from day to day, but since Epstein is pleading guilty (as opposed to no contest), there should be a written plea agreement and a full plea colloquy that goes through all of the terms of the plea agreement and a factual proffer that the defendant has to agree to. She said that, after the rest of the colloquy is finished, the judge asks the prosecutor to state the factual basis, and the prosecutor then reads the factual proffer into the record. After it is read, the judge asks the defendant is he did the things recited in the proffer and/or if he agrees that the State could prove those facts. She said that the length and detail of the factual proffer varies from prosecutor to prosecutor and thought that Lanna was less detailed than most. I will try to send you a proposed factual proffer later this afternoon. Assistant U.S. Attorney
- Can we file the proposed indictment under seal with the State Court judge? The agreement states that the - parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. 2. Was your suggestion to prepare a notice to victims incorporating the language of the 12/19 letter?
Hi [ ] - Sorry. I have an indictment going tomorrow so I haven't had a chance to work on the notice yet, but, yes, I planned to use the 12/19 language. I am going to start working on that right now. As to filing the indictment under seal with the state court, I really think this is walking too close to a 6(♥ violation, and since the state judges up here don't like us too much, Judge McSorley would probably order it unsealed which would cause huge problems, both in terms of Rule 6( and because the public reaction will be - if the US had the evidence to prosecute all of these counts, which is he skating with 18 months? I haven't heard anything from Roy or anyone else. Let me think about ways other than contacting the State Attorney's Office to accomplish our goals. Assistant U.S. Attorney
Can you take a look and provide feedback? I know that Alex added "No more, no less" in his letter, but it isn't really "legalese," so I would prefer to omit unless the defense insists. Also, please let me know if you want me to send over to Roy and Jack now or wait until the deal is done. Victim Notification.wpd A. Villafaña Assistant U.S. Attorney.
Hi guys - Can you send me the stuff on I (including lists of phone calls) so I can add her to the indictment? Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney
Hi guys - Can you send me the stuff on [REDACTED] (including lists of phone calls) so I can add her to the indictment? Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney
Ms. [REDACTED], I apologize, here they are. From: (USAFLS) [mailto Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:23 PM To: Subject: RE: Immunity Letter Hi - Thank you for your -mail, but the attachment did not come through. Can you resend? A. [ ] Villafaña Assistant U.S. Attorney From: (CRM) Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:18 PM To: (USAFLS) Cc: (CRM); (CRM) Subject: Immunity Letter Ms. immunity authorization letter is attached to this email; if further assistance is needed on this matter call Legal Assistant Policy and Statutory Enforcement Unit - OEO
Hi [ ] - I have tried to phrase it in a way that suggests that, since Epstein has performed certain provisions, it is now our turn to perform. << File: Revised Victim Notification.wpd >> Assistant U.S. Attorney
Hi I have tried to phrase it in a way that suggests that, since Epstein has performed certain provisions, it is now our turn to perform. << File: Revised Victim Notification.wpd >> Assistant U.S. Attorney
What do you think <<U.wpd>>
I am running off to grand jury. I will call as soon as I get back, probably around 9:45. Thanks.
Did you get the fax of info? I sent the phone reports in a second fax because they did not scan cleanly with the first fax.
Hi -- They were on my chair when I got back. Thank you! Assistant U.S. Attorney
Hi -- I made one small change in the acknowledgment paragraph, so that it says the letter accurately sets forth the agreement with the Office regarding the identification and notification of victims. I don't want him to think that all of the other terms and conditions went "poof." Also, during my obsession last night I thought, if Ken S. really wants to "bury the hatchet" he can start by sending a letter to OPR making clear that no member of the U.S. Attorney's Office committed any misconduct in connection with the investigation and prosecution of JE. If he wants to add, "and I admit that I am a liar, liar, pants on fire," that would be gravy. The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Victim Notification with edit.wpd Note: To protect against computer viruses, -mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your -mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
Dear Roy and Jack: I have been reviewing the deferred prosecution agreement and wanted to remind you that the agreement states: "Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering into those agreements." Please provide me with any proposed agreements at your earliest opportunity, and also please provide me with the date and time of the change of plea. Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney
Gr8. BTW what about a factual proffer?
I think that is something we should take up with the State Attorney's Office once this is a done deal. Another way we may be able to do this is through the local police detective who investigated the case. He may be given an opportunity to speak if he asks for it. I will find out about that.
A question regarding the status of something, followed by a reference to an "Assistant U.S. Attorney." The specific details of the question and the Assistant U.S. Attorney are redacted.
Hi guys — I am going to re-add the following travel counts: 8/6/04 8/19/04 and 10/29/04 and 2/21/05 3/31/05 and Does that sound alright? Assistant U.S. Attorney